WASHINGTON - Consumer prices were flat in September as retreating costs for gasoline, clothes and new cars helped to offset rising prices for food, medical care and other things.
The new reading on the Consumer Price Index, the government’s most closely watched inflation barometer, came after prices actually dipped by 0.1 percent in August, the Labor Department reported Thursday.
Those two months, however, had offered Americans a rare reprieve. Consumer prices have marched upward most of the year, spiking by an eye popping 1.1 percent in June.
The toll of galloping prices for much of this year is eating into paychecks, further straining consumers who are pulling back sharply. Recent readings on retail sales were grim. The prospects that consumers will retrench further would spell more trouble for the already ailing economy.
Other economic reports showed that filings for unemployment benefits remained elevated and big industry production plunged by the most since late 1974, largely reflecting fallout from hurricanes Gustav and Ike.
In the inflation report, when energy and food products are stripped out, “core” prices inched up by just 0.1 percent in September, an improvement from a 0.2 percent advance in August.
The latest showing on inflation was better than economists expected. They were forecasting a 0.1 percent increase in overall prices and a 0.2 percent rise minus energy and food.
I'm wondering, with the retail sales dropping 1.2 percent in September, and now consumer prices remaining flat in September, are we starting to see a serious pullback in consumer spending? And because American consumers are pulling back on their spending, producers and retailers are forced to keep their prices flat, rather than forcing consumers to absorb even more price increases. I suspect that if food, medical care, and energy costs continue to increase for producers, then producers are going to cut back on labor costs--or lay off workers--in order to keep their product prices as low as they can, even as consumers are cutting back on their spending. We're spiraling into a recession.
Well, the third, and final, presidential debate between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain has now started. I don't believe in live-blogging the debate, since I am a small blogger and even I can't keep up with the give and take between the candidates, presenting their own spin on the issues. In addition, I'm currently listening to the debate on the radio, after which I will watch the debate through both TV and online video. But that will be after the debate is finished.
So here we are on this final debate. Looking at some of what the political pundits have been saying, this is John McCain's big make or break his presidency debate. McCain is down in the national polls, and in a number of state polls. The McCain campaign has been spending a huge amount of time, and money, engaged in negative attacks against Obama. And in the past month, nothing seemed to have worked for the McCain campaign. Listening to the debate now, it appears that all that John McCain can do is continue his negative attacks against Barack Obama. I'm not sure that will help John McCain's presidential ambitions. Ever since John McCain announced his candidacy, he has been running a campaign based on either his experience, his extreme support for the Bush war in Iraq, his support for extending the Bush tax cuts--in effect, John McCain is running for President Bush's third term. McCain has even employed, not just the lobbyists, but also Karl Rove's political team, from the Bush campaign, to run his own campaign. And John McCain is running this campaign against an overwhelming tide of Americans that oppose the direction this country has been taken to, under the eight years of this Bush administration. John McCain has only started talking about "change" since the general election started, even as Barack Obama has been talking about change since the first day Obama announced his candidacy. I honestly do not know how John McCain can overcome insurmountable obstacle. Maybe if John McCain fires his lobbyists, renounces his current domestic, economic, and foreign policies, and agree with the Democratic Party platform, then perhaps John McCain would have a chance to win the Oval Office he so craves. But that would mean that John McCain would turn into Barack Obama, and Barack Obama would have to be smoking a joint during the debate, while falling flat on his face in order to turn people away from Obama and back to McCain.
I found this Politico's Ben Smith story through both The Washington Monthly and Americablog, and it is just fascinating. Smith got an email from a Republican consultant, who "conducted a focus group in an upper-Midwestern state," showing this group a number of "no-holds-barred attack" ads that have yet to air.
Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart.
Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.
The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:
54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."
The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."
I felt like I was taking crazy pills. I sat on the other side of the glass and realized...this really is the Apocalypse. The Seventh Seal is broken and its time for eight years of pure, delicious crazy....
What happened? It is like the Republican Party turned away from these average, Reagan Democrats and Independent voters, and stomped them hard into the ground. These voters are angry at the GOP for failing to regulate the housing bubble and subprime mortgage mess, and then are angry for the government to use their taxpayer dollars to bail out Wall Street from this financial mess. These voters are angry at paying huge health care premiums for little care. I would even say that these voters are angry at the huge tax cuts that are going to the rich, the tax breaks going to big oil and big corporations, while energy, gas prices, and food prices soar. These voters may also be angry at the deteriorating job market, the huge debt that the government has incurred, and the continuing disaster that is the U.S. war in Iraq. The CBS News / New York Times poll reports that 89 percent of Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track, with only 7 percent of Americans believing the country is on the right track. These voters are angry at the Republican Party for sending the country into this disastrous direction. They are angry at President George W. Bush, giving him an over two-thirds job disapproval rating. But President Bush is on his way out in January, 2009. The only way that these voters can send a message to the GOP is to vote Barack Obama into the White House--even if these Reagan Democrats and Independents completely hate Obama. If you want to change the direction of the country, then change the man in the White House. That is what the focus group is telling this Republican consultant. And if this focus group is representative of all the Reagan Democrats and Independents, then John McCain may find it impossible to be elected into the third Bush term.
WASHINGTON - U.S. retail sales fell off a cliff in September, plunging by the largest amount in three years as worried consumers shunned the malls and auto showrooms in the midst of the country's financial meltdown.
The Commerce Department reported Wednesday retail sales decreased 1.2 percent last month, nearly double the 0.7 percent drop that had been expected. It was the biggest decline since retail sales fell by 1.4 percent in August 2005.
The bigger-than-expected decline significantly increased the risks of a recession because consumer spending is two-thirds of total economic activity.
[....]
The weakness was led by a 3.8 percent drop in auto sales. Sales dropped below 1 million units as consumers struggled to find financing.
Retail sales have now fallen for three consecutive months, the first time that has occurred on government records that go back to 1992. Economists had expected sales to be down in September as a flood of bad news about the financial system and rising unemployment increased consumers' worries.
Many analysts believe the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, is slipping into a recession, triggered by a steep slump in housing and the severe credit crisis.
Even excluding auto sales, retail sales showed widespread weakness, falling by 0.6 percent or double the decline outside of autos that had been expected.
"The consumer shut up shop even before the markets got crushed and that is not good news for the economy," said Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors. "What is ominous is that the declines in spending were broad based."
Sales at department stores fell by 1.5 percent following an even bigger 1.6 percent drop in July. Sales at furniture stores fell by 2.3 percent. Sales at appliance stores slid 1.5 percent.
Graph showing retail sales dropping 1.2 percent in September. From MSNBC
With the financial meltdown taking place over the past four weeks, the wild gyrations of the stock market, culminating in an almost 2000 point drop in the Dow, and the rising fears of a U.S. recession, it is no wonder that consumers are cutting back on their spending. What is more, if you look at the graph, you can see that retail sales have been dropping continuously since June--this is not just a one-time event, but rather a trend as Americans look at the U.S. economy, look at the job picture, the heath care crisis, and the financial meltdown, and they are worried about what they are seeing. As a result of these economic worries, Americans are cutting back on their spending. The U.S. economy is heading into a bad recession--if we're not already in it.
Update: The Dow just dropped 450 points, possibly in reaction to the plummeting September retail sales report. Also from MSNBC News:
NEW YORK - Wall Street tumbled again Wednesday after a disappointing retail sales report offered fresh evidence that an intractable freeze in the credit markets since last month has caused cracks in the economy well beyond the banking sector.
The Dow Jones industrials dropped more than 450 points, giving back a chunk of their huge 936-point advance from Monday, and all of the major indexes were down at least 4 percent.
[....]
In early afternoon trading, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 452.32, or 4.86 percent, to 8,858.67.
Broader stock indicators also skidded. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index fell 56.81, or 5.69 percent, to 941.20, and the Nasdaq composite index fell 85.61, or 4.81 percent, to 1,693.40.
It is going to be another wild stock market ride for this week.
William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.
The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.
During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through.
Timmons' activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism. His dealings on behalf of the deceased Iraqi leader stand in stark contrast to the views his current employer held at the time.
John McCain strongly supported the 1991 military action against Iraq, and as recently as Sunday described Saddam Hussein as a one-time menace to the region who had "stated categorically that he would acquire weapons of mass destruction, and he would use them wherever he could."
Timmons declined to comment for this story.
I don't know what to say about this story. First, the McCain campaign has been making consistent, negative attacks against Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, trying to tie Obama with Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, even to the point of enticingthecrowdwithhatred. And yet, even as John McCain attempts to link Barack Obama with terrorists, we are now discovering that the real linkage to terrorists is from the McCain campaign, with lobbyist William Timmons having a history of working for Saddam Hussein.
My apologies for the lack of posting. I have been sick in bed with some bad cold or flue, drowning an enormous amount of NiQuil, DayQuil, and orange juice. That is what happens when you get sick, stay in bed, sleep, and watch TV. Of course, I've been following the campaign via the cable news shows, and the question I have to ask is, has anything really changed in the past five days? The Obama campaign continues in its smooth efficiency, while the McCain campaign self-destructs, then reboots, and then self-destructs again. I'm starting to wonder if there is anything more I can analyze on the McCain campaign that I haven't already said of their continued self-destruction again and again. It reminds me of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode Cause and Effect, where the Enterprise goes through this space-time distortion of being destroyed. Here is Captain John McCain and the Starship Straight Talk Express, caught up in a space-time distortion of a failing U.S. war in Iraq, a financial crisis gripping the U.S. economy, and a bagful of useless, hateful, fear-mongering tricks showing Barack Obama as being the bogyman.
Several things about John McCain’s Monday caused some head scratching, including the tease of some new economic policies to a town hall meeting with no Q&A.
It began with McCain’s close friend Sen. Lindsey Graham who said McCain would propose new tax policies this week. Yet Monday brought two stump speeches with no new economic proposals. Instead, McCain reiterated what he’s been saying for weeks.
A conference call with the campaign provided little guidance. It seems Monday was all about unveiling a new stump speech, according to campaign spokesman Brian Rogers.
On Tuesday, McCain will outline “specific new measures,” according to Doug Holtz-Eakin, the campaign’s economic policy director, on a conference call with reporters. He declined to elaborate any further, saying only, “We just need to look forward to hearing from him.”
Then came the event in Wilmington, N.C., held at — irony alert!– Cape Fear Community College. McCain stood in front of the crowd and said he would take questions or comments after he delivered his remarks. He finished his prepared speech and tacked on a longtime stump story about the bracelet he wears. But then the music and handshaking began. No questions or comments to be heard—at least those directed at the senator. “I thought this was a town hall meeting?” a man asked the press corps.
To cap off the day, McCain tried channeling Clark Gable. During an interview with CNN, reporter Dana Bash asked about McCain’s attacks on Barack Obama, including the Democrat’s relationship with Bill Ayers, the 1960s radical turned college professor.
“Very frankly, Dana, I don’t give a damn about an old unrepentant terrorist,” McCain said.
Here we go again--another space-time distortion destroying the Starship Straight Talk Express. First, the McCain campaign announces this big economic plan that John McCain will present on Monday. Monday comes by, and nothing happens. Starship Straight Talk Express explodes. Then Tuesday, the campaign announces that McCain will outline “specific new measures,” without saying what those measures would be. Starship Straight Talk Express explodes again. Then, John McCain holds a rally at Cape Fear Community College, giving his stump speech and saying that he would answer questions from the audience. After the speech, McCain forgets that he promised the audience an impromptu town hall meeting, and instead, starts shaking hands with the audience. Starship Straigh Talk Express explodes yet again. Finally, McCain talks to CNN's Dana Bash about the McCain campaign's negative attacks against Barack Obama by linking Obama with Bill Ayers, the 1960s Weatherman terrorist. Captain John McCain responds that he doesn't "give a damn about an old unrepentant terrorist." The Starship Straight Talk Express explodes yet again.
I wonder what is going to happen today with the Starship Straight Talk Express?
On Monday, Countdown's Keith Olbermann gave a special comment, where Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin gave a stump speech in Clearwater Florida, attacking Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama for being "pals" with former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers. Palin's attack on Obama incited the crowd to boo at Obama, even going as far as one anonymous person shouting out to, "kill him." Palin was silent, refusing to admonish the crowd for demanding Obama's assassination.
[Arriving] reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."
And finally, Pennsylvania Republican Party chairman Robert A. Gleason, Jr. called out Barack Obama's association with Ayers "alarming," and questions Obama's character in "that he knowingly associates with terrorists?" In short, the Pennsylvania Republican Party chairman called Obama "a terrorist's best friend."
So why am I bringing all this McCain hate up? Because it is all that McCain has left to campaign on. On Monday's Countdown fifth story, Olbermann reports the McCain strategist saying that McCain will lose, if the election is based on the economic crisis. Olbermann also provides the NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll numbers, with 59 percent of Americans saying that the economy is the most important issue in deciding the election, and Obama's national lead over McCain is at 49 percent over 43 percent. You can view Olbermann's story here:
The McCain campaign has attempted to compete in claiming that John McCain is now the candidate of change in this election, even though John McCain campaigned as a candidate of experience in the GOP primary. That strategy has failed since Obama had started his own presidential campaign as that of a change campaign, and has shown John McCain voting record to be 95 percent of the time in line with George W. Bush. The Obama campaign has linked John McCain with George W. Bush, and that a McCain presidency would be a third Bush term. But what has really sent the McCain campaign spiraling downward has been the economy. It has been the financial crisis, the steep slide of the stock market, accumulating into a $2 trillion loss in Americans' retirement savings over the past 15 months. Americans are wary of the $750 billion Wall Street bailout package, with a 55 percent majority of Americans opposed to using the government bailing out private companies with their taxpayer dollars. And even today, the International Monetary Fund is predicting that the U.S. will go into a deep recession, with a projected slowing to 1.6 percent growth this year, and a screeching halt to 0.1 percent growth for 2009. The economy is the big election news issue now. The McCain campaign cannot compete against the economic news with the stale, Bush economic policies of tax cuts for the rich and government deregulation in the face of a plummeting stock market and the wiping out of Americans' retirement savings. The only thing the McCain campaign can do is to wallow into the mud and go negative against Obama. I think the strategy here for McCain is to try to bring out the conservative vote with extreme, divisive politics, and hope that the fear mongering, Obama-is-a-terrorist, approach will peel off enough independent votes to win. I'm not sure that is going to happen, not with the deteriorating U.S. economy. But it is the only play that John McCain has, with less than a month to go in the election.
This brings us back to Keith Olbermann's Special Comment. Olbermann criticizes Sarah Palin's attacks against Obama, linking Obama with Ayers, and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. These are non-issues that have already been investigated, reported, and commented on, in the press and blogs, months ago. And while Olbermann directly criticizes Palin for stepping into the mud, he also shows Palin's hypocrisy of attacking Obama on terrorism and religion with Palin's own association with the Alaska Independence Party, or Palin's relationship with Pastor Thomas Muthee, and the video showing Muthee protecting Palin from witchcraft. In reality, Olbermann states that "the wheels" are coming off the McCain campaign, as John McCain and Sarah Palin fail to shift Americans' attention away from the damning issue of the economy, to the personality and character issues of negative attacks on Obama. Not only are we watching the wheels come of the McCain campaign, but we are also watching the spectacular slow-motion train wreak of the McCain Straight Talk Express. Here is Keith Olbermann's Special Comment:
I really don't know what to say about this. From Reuters:
SAN FRANCISCO - Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin called Afghanistan “our neighboring country” on Sunday in a speech that could revive questions over her tendency to stumble into linguistic knots.
Three days after a mostly gaffe-free debate performance, the Alaska governor fumbled during a speech in which she praised U.S. soldiers for “fighting terrorism and protecting us and our democratic values”.
“They are also building schools for the Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighboring country of Afghanistan,” she told several hundred supporters at a fundraising event in San Francisco.
The gaffe could add fuel to comedians and late-night talk show hosts who have seized on her linguistic infelicities to portray her as someone not to be taken seriously.
So this is our new neighboring country, Afghanistan, Sarah?
And how does Mexico and Canada feel, now that you've dissed them for being not so neighboring?
I found this New York Daily News story through Americablog, and it is very telling of just how desperate the McCain campaign is during the past three weeks or so. Ever since the financial crisis slammed Wall Street these past three weeks, the McCain campaign has been flailing about, first sending Mr. McCain to Washington to completely screw up the $750 bailout plan vote in the House, and then blaming Democratic candidate Barack Obama with playing politics on the financial crisis. And now we have this New York Daily News story to consider:
A top McCain adviser signaled last week that the campaign intends to "turn the page" from economic issues — which polls show have staked Obama to a significant lead — and ramp up attacks on Obama as an inexperienced ultraliberal.
[....]
McCain's course correction reflects a growing case of nerves within his high command as the electoral map has shifted significantly in Obama's favor in the past two weeks.
"It's a dangerous road, but we have no choice," a top McCain strategist told the Daily News. "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."
The McCain campaign has no choice. The campaign's political, domestic, and economic policies are really a continuation of the Bush administration's current policies. John McCain cannot run on a Bush third term, not when three-quarters of the American public believe that the country is on the wrong track. The campaign has tried to reset their message, last month, from McCain being a candidate of experience, to McCain being a candidate of change--even as Barack Obama has been campaigning on the message of change since he announced his candidacy last year. The McCain has said, in September, that they were going to run a personality-based campaign rather than an issue-based campaign. We have John McCain first admitting that he doesn't know much about economics, but then denying that he ever made such a claim. And finally, for much of the year, John McCain denied that the country was heading into a recession, blaming the American people for believing such economic problems that were really psychological. This is a campaign that cannot run on issues, and the McCain campaign knows that John McCain will lose the presidential race on the issues. They need to shift the American public's attention away from the economy, and the financial crisis that is hitting American's pocketbooks, back to the personality-based campaign of negative advertising and character assassinations against Obama. The problem for the McCain campaign is that the slowing economy is making this personality-based shift almost impossible to achieve. It is why you are seeing fear creeping into the McCain high command, as Americans worry about the economy, while shifting their own support to Barack Obama, as seen in the polling results. If the U.S. economy continues to sour, expect to see Obama poll even higher than McCain, and the fear continue to spread throughout the McCain campaign that Johnny-Boy will lose this election.
Tina Fey still shows her wicked, comedic side in portraying Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in Saturday Night Live's opening skit of the vice presidential debate. Queen Latifah portrays moderator Gwen Ifill, while SNL's Jason Sudeikis shows just how tough Joe Biden is during the debate.
And yes, Tina Fey shows just what she can do with that flute.
A very wise TV executive once told me that the key to TV is projecting through the screen. It's one of the keys to the success of, say, a Bill O'Reilly, who comes through the screen and grabs you by the throat. Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.
Now wonder Pat Buchanan exploded in his pants. Sarah Palin winked at Buchanan, Lowry, and every other conservative male watching, sending starbursts through the TV screen, ricocheting around the living rooms of America. Multiply those ricocheting starbursts several million times and what do you get?
Here is NBC News' political director Chuck Todd's analysis of Sarah Palin's debate performance.
Chuck Todd noted that Sarah Palin gave a good personal performance in the debate, but the downside was that the McCain campaign was "running out of game-changing moments" to "change the trajectory of this race." Both candidates did well. Both candidates did not make any major mistakes. We are back at the same political campaign position as we were before the vice presidential debate. Todd believes that this VP debate will quickly fade out, as the bigger political story of McCain pulling out of Michigan dominates the news headlines. I'll say that the debate will generate enough headlines for the next three or four days, as pundits and bloggers analyze the candidates' answers.
Update: And as an added bonus, MSNBC's Chris Matthews considered Sarah Palin's debate performance was "like watching a spelling bee."
Okay, it is time to talk about the vice presidential debate between Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Sarah Palin. I've watched the debate on television last night, watched the MSNBC commentary on the debate, and listened to the debate today via webcast. And I've been thinking and reflecting on the debate since yesterday. Here is the webcast for the vice presidential debate:
And here is the transcript for the vice presidential debate.
My first impressions on the debate was that it was a tie. For the past couple of weeks, I've been hearing how Palin was going to fall on her face during the debate, or how the vice presidential debate was going to be of even lower expectations than previous vice presidential debates--can you say Dan Quayle will mop the floor with Sarah Palin? And then in the hours before the debate, I'm told that Palin is a strong debater, and will beat Joe Biden in the debate. So there was a lot of hype and speculation leading up to this big debate.
So who won in Biden verses Palin? I'm going to say it was a tie. Sarah Palin did not fall on her face during last night's debate. Sarah Palin was poised, collected, and especially charming in her folksy, Alaskan manner. Palin didn't make any serious, flubbing, mistakes during the debate. Palin also showed that she could be an attack dog on taxes, Iraq, and energy policy. In fact, Sarah Palin clearly showed that she could debate on the national scene with the big boys in Washington. This was a big win for Sarah Palin.
Joe Biden also did very well in the debate. Joe Biden was very cool, very knowledgeable, and did a very good job in deconstructing the McCain campaign talking points, consistently linking John McCain to the Bush administration. In fact, Biden's linking of McCain to a Bush third term was almost boring in its consistency. Even more, Joe Biden did not put his foot in his mouth, considering how much of a talker Biden can be. Joe Biden's job in this debate was to link John McCain to the failed Bush presidency, and he performed that job very well for the Obama campaign. This was also a win for Joe Biden.
The real loser in this debate was John McCain. Here is why. Sarah Palin was very good in presenting herself as a strong debater in last night's debate. She stemmed her own bloodletting and questions of whether she could perform well on the national scene. However, the answers that Palin gave to the debate questions were nothing more than canned McCain campaign talking points--John McCain is a maverick, John McCain represents change, John McCain and I will clean up Washington corruption. There were no policy points of substance as to how a McCain / Palin administration will represent change, or what a McCain / Palin administration will do to clean up Washington corruption. Sarah Palin simply regurgitated McCain campaign talking points that you could probably pull out of any stump speech she made since becoming the vice presidential nominee. Sarah Palin could debate on the national scene, and certainly win over the conservative wing of the Republican Party--MSNBC's Pat Buchanan practically exploded in his pants over how Sarah Palin "was sensational" in the debate:
Sarah Palin didn't have to rally the conservative base over to the McCain campaign--they've been rooting for Sarah Palin ever since she stepped up to the RNC convention stage to accept her VP nomination. The problem for the McCain campaign is that Sarah Palin had to entice the moderates and independents over to the McCain campaign. She couldn't do that with the canned McCain campaign talking points she was stating during the debate. It was not enough. Sarah Palin had to present the McCain campaign's policy points on the economy, the financial mess, tax cuts, the war on Iraq, and other important issues, rather than saying that John McCain is a maverick who represents real change and will clean up Washington corruption. It is not enough to say that a McCain / Palin administration will fix the country's problems, but you have to explain the steps on how a McCain / Palin administration will provide such a fix. Sarah Palin refused to provide that information in the debate. She could not do it. Even more, Sarah Palin refused to rebuke Joe Biden's consistent tying of John McCain to George Bush--and the few times that Palin tried to rebuke Biden, she went back to the McCain talking points of attacking Obama, rather than explaining why John McCain is different from George W. Bush. So while Sarah Palin may have won a tactical victory in showing up to debate Joe Biden, and not make a fool of herself, she lost in the overall strategic campaign of bringing moderates and independents into the McCain fold. Consider these two post-debate polls:
Two quick polls indicated that Biden fared better in viewers' minds than Palin in the debate. A CBS News/Knowledge Networks Poll found that 46 percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate thought Biden won, with 21 percent siding with Palin. A CNN poll found respondents judging Biden the winner by a margin of 51 percent to 36 percent but calling Palin more likable by 54 percent to Biden's 36 percent.
Both candidates exceeded expectations -- 84 percent of the people polled said Palin did a better job than they expected, while 64 percent said Biden also exceeded expectations.
[....]
Respondents thought Biden was better at expressing his views, giving him 52 percent to Palin's 36 percent.
On the question of the candidates' qualifications to assume the presidency, 87 percent of those polled said Biden is qualified and 42 percent said Palin is qualified.
The candidates sparred over which team would be the better agent of change, and Biden came out on top of that debate, with 53 percent of those polled giving the nod to the Delaware senator while 42 percent said Palin was more likely to bring change.
So while Sarah Palin had certainly improved her image with the debate among respondents, Joe Biden showed himself to be a stronger candidate than Palin, polling better in the areas of presidential qualifications, agent of change, and expressing views. Sarah Palin polled better than Biden on expectations, but even here we have to consider how much media speculation there was of Palin crumpling in the spotlight of this national debate. Then there is this CBS News post-debate poll:
Immediately after the vice presidential debate, CBS News interviewed a nationally representative sample of nearly 500 debate watchers, assembled by Knowledge Networks, who were "uncommitted voters" - voters who are either undecided about who to vote for or who have a preference but say they could still change their minds.
Forty-six percent of these uncommitted viewers said Biden won the debate Thursday night, while 21 percent said Palin won. Thirty-three percent thought it was a tie.
Even a quarter of Republican uncommitted voters thought Biden won the debate.
Among these voters, there was improvement in views of both Palin and Biden. Fifty-five percent of the uncommitted voters said their opinion of Palin had changed for the better as a result of the debate; just 14 percent said they had a lower opinion of her after tonight, and 30 percent said their views of her did not change.
As for Biden, 53 percent of uncommitted viewers said their image of the veteran senator improved, while five percent said their opinion of him got worse. Forty-two percent said their opinion did not change.
Palin's rating improved after the debate on being knowledgeable on important issues - from 43 percent to 66 percent - but Biden still far outpaces her. After the debate, 98 percent thought he was knowledgeable.
Uncommitted voters' views of Palin's preparedness for the job of vice president also improved as a result of her debate performance - from 39 percent to 55 percent. But those numbers are still nowhere near the percentage that thinks Biden is prepared - 97 percent, up from 81 percent before the debate.
These post-debate numbers are just incredible. Joe Biden polls better than Sarah Palin in many areas--less people had a lower opinion of Biden over Palin, Biden's knowledgeable rating improved significantly over Palin, and Biden's preparation for the debate soared over Palin's preparation. Even a quarter of the uncommitted Republicans felt that Biden won the debate over Palin. Sarah Palin had a greater responsibility to bring over the uncommitted, independent, and moderate voters to the McCain camp. She failed. And with the McCain campaign continuing in a downward spiral, with about a month left before the election, it is going to be far more difficult for John McCain and Sarah Palin to turn this campaign around.
This was a huge, lost opportunity for John McCain and Sarah Palin.
You can feel it in the clenched muscles in his throat, the narrowing of his eyes, the controlled tone with which he handles a question he doesn't like, as if struggling to contain something that might spill out. We've seen that body language on TV. But around a Des Moines Register table Tuesday, the anger and tension were palpable. And unsettling.
McCain's volatility has been written and whispered about by staff and Senate colleagues: the mercurial temper, the quixotic outbursts of reproach, then jocularity. But those alleged episodes were behind the scenes. The combative, prickly McCain we saw was seeking the Register's endorsement. He already got it in the caucuses.
He took frequent offense at questions, characterizing them as personal viewpoints of the questioners rather than legitimate topics. True, he was asked some tough, pointed questions about his running mate and his honesty. But America is having those discussions, and you'd expect he'd be ready, not defensive. It takes a thick skin to be president.
McCain says he is angry because "people are angry." But his behavior suggests it's more than that. Maybe it's because his poll numbers are falling, his running mate is being ridiculed and his attempt to play fixer on the bailout failed to launch. Or maybe, a more worrisome prospect, this is the real McCain - who can't deal with stressful situations without feeling attacked, who lashes out when he feels threatened.
Except for opening and closing statements, he showed little humor. On Sarah Palin's lack of experience, he repeatedly told the questioner she and he had "a fundamental disagreement," and concluded, "I'm so happy the American people seem to be siding with me."
Scoffing at the suggestion some conservatives had reservations, he asked with exaggerated emphasis, "Really? I haven't detected that. I haven't detected that. I haven't detected that in the polls, I haven't detected that amongst the base... Now if there's a Georgetown cocktail party person who quote calls himself a conservative and doesn't like her, good luck. Good luck."
[....]
Newspapers regularly put candidates in the hot seat. Some playfully disarm the questioner. Some deflect the question. The confident relish the chance to make their case.
McCain seemed put out.
The presidency requires a special temperament. It demands statesmanship with foreign leaders, persuasiveness with Congress and calm assuredness with the public. If McCain is so flustered in an editorial meeting, how would he guide a nation in crisis?
Basu provides some interesting examples of just how volatile McCain's temper was during the Des Moines Register's interview. It is disturbing to see just how confrontational McCain was with the editorial board of an Iowa newspaper. You certainly have to wonder if McCain's anger is because of his imploding campaign? Is it because of McCain's falling poll numbers? Look at the first presidential debate with Barack Obama, where McCain would not even look at Obama during the entire debate. It is almost like we're starting to see a grumpy old man, angry at the fact that he will not be given his capstone career of the Oval Office that he believes he is entitled to, and is lashing out at anyone questioning his divine right to this office. Is this the kind of individual, with such an explosive temperament, that we want in the White House?
SACRAMENTO -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, alarmed by the ongoing national financial crisis, warned Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson on Thursday that the state might need an emergency loan of as much as $7 billion from the federal government within weeks.
The warning comes as California is close to running out of cash to fund day-to-day government operations and is unable to access routine short-term loans that it typically relies on to remain solvent.
The state of California is the biggest of several governments nationwide that are being locked out of the bond market by the global credit crunch. If the state is unable to access the cash, administration officials say, payments to schools and other government entities could quickly be suspended and state employees could be laid off.
Plans by several state and local governments to borrow in recent days have been upended by the credit freeze. New Mexico was forced to put off a $500-million bond sale, Massachusetts had to pull the plug halfway into a $400-million offering, and Maine is considering canceling road projects that were to be funded with bonds.
California finance experts say they know of no time in recent history when the state has sought an emergency loan of this magnitude from the federal government. The only other such rescue was in 1975, they said, when the federal government lent New York City money to avoid bankruptcy.
"Absent a clear resolution to this financial crisis," Schwarzenegger wrote in a letter Thursday evening e-mailed to Paulson, "California and other states may be unable to obtain the necessary level of financing to maintain government operations and may be forced to turn to the federal treasury for short-term financing."
The letter, obtained by The Times, came on the eve of a vote by the House of Representatives on a $700-billion rescue package, but it was too soon to know how the package would affect the nation's paralyzed credit markets. The Senate approved the so-called rescue bill Wednesday night.
A top Schwarzenegger aide followed up the letter with a call to the Treasury secretary Thursday night. Treasury Department officials could not be reached for comment.
Now I will admit that the California state legislature, and the governor's office, have been a complete joke in constantly fighting over the state budget, which has consistently forced the budget to be passed on a late date. And as the legislature, and the governor, have been fighting over the budget, the state has been borrowing funds to make up for the financing as the budget fights continue again, and again, and again. This has been going on for years. But what is scary here is that the credit crunch, brought on by the subprime mortgage collapse, has forced California out of the credit market. According to the Sacramento Bee:
California's record 85-day budget standoff reduced the window for securing short-term borrowing depended upon by the state each year to fill gaps in revenue collection. The nation's financial crisis has exacerbated the problem.
Treasurer Bill Lockyer said the state's reserves will be exhausted this month absent a thawing of the nation's credit freeze.
California potentially could be forced next month to stop or delay payments for teachers' salaries, nursing homes, law enforcement, cities, counties, school districts and every other state-funded service, Lockyer said.
The state could be $1.5 billion in the red by Oct. 29 unless a short-term revenue source is found, said Hallye Jordan, spokeswoman for State Controller John Chiang.
The $7 billion in short-term financing, called revenue anticipation notes, is the amount needed by the state through June 30.
So the budget standoff has forced the state to fund its operations with these revenue anticipation notes, providing liquidity to the state until the holiday sales tax revenues, income tax and corporate tax revenues come into the state coffers. But with the Wall Street financial meltdown taking place, will the big Wall Street banks be willing to give money to California for these revenue anticipation notes, considering how much money these same Wall Street banks are losing due to the write downs because of the subprime mortgage collapse. And these same Wall Street banks are asking the federal government to buy up their own worthless subprime mortgage securities? What is more, these California revenue anticipation notes will have to be paid back by June 30th, 2009--when the state passes the next fiscal year budget. Of course, California will not pass the next state budget on time, and we will have another long delay as the state legislature and the governor, again, fight over the next budget. The system is completely broken, and we are seeing the effects of this breakdown as the financial markets collapse, and the U.S. economy weakens into a recession.
What a frickin' financial mess that we Californians are sitting in.
And it only took around $110 billion in Senate tax cut incentives to bribe the House. From MSNBC.com:
The House passed a $700 billion bailout of the financial services industry Friday, reversing itself after members who voted to kill the measure earlier in the week came around to a Senate version that offered more protection for individual investors and small businesses.
Stocks were up sharply in anticipation that the measure could help thaw frozen credit markets.
After a week of reversals and intense lobbying, the measure ended up passing comfortably by a vote of 263-171. After seeing the bill go down to defeat Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had said she would not let it come up for a vote Friday unless it was clear that it would pass.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said President Bush would “like to sign it as quickly as possible — as soon as they get it to us.” House staffers said it would be sent to the White House as early as Friday afternoon for Bush’s signature.
Under the plan, the Treasury Department would be authorized to spend as much as $700 billion to buy bad mortgage-related securities, which have slowed and, in some cases, dried up the flow of credit.
The Senate dramatically changed the measure Wednesday, adding an additional $110 billion in additional tax breaks, incentives and other measures, including an expansion of coverage of individual bank deposits by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Update: President Bush quickly signed the Wall Street bailout bill.
John McCain is pulling out of Michigan, according to two Republicans, a stunning move a month away from Election Day that indicates the difficulty Republicans are having in finding blue states to put in play.
McCain will go off TV in Michigan, stop dropping mail there and send most of his staff to more competitive states, including Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. Wisconsin went for Kerry in 2004, Ohio and Florida for Bush.
McCain's campaign didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Republicans had been bullish on Michigan, hopeful that McCain's past success in the state in the 2000 primary combined with voter dissatisfaction with Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm and skepticism among blue-collar voters about Barack Obama could make it competitive.
McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin spent the night after the GOP convention at a large rally in Macomb County, just outside Detroit. The two returned later last month for another sizable event in Grand Rapids.
But recent polls there have shown Obama extending what had been a small lead, with the economic crisis damaging an already sagging GOP brand in a state whose economy is in tatters.
A McCain event planned for next week in Plymouth, Michiigan, has been canceled.
I haven't really wanted to comment on polling results because I wasn't sure about the accuracy of this polling data. I'm not saying that the polling firms are adjusting their data to fit their own pre-conceived notions (perhaps some firms are), but rather that the American public may be saying one thing to the pollsters, while deciding to vote the opposite way on Election Day. So I'm not sure I can trust the polls' 5-10 point Obama lead over McCain, especially with the 3-4 point margin of error. So I'm watching the poll numbers with a quiet interest.
But this is a big story here. Michigan was one of the battleground states which both Obama and McCain have been fighting over. In order to win, McCain needed the Midwestern states of Michigan, Ohio, and perhaps even Wisconsin. McCain also needs Pennsylvania and Florida. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are leaning towards Obama, and the polls are showing Michigan turning completely to Obama. According to MSNBC News, the McCain campaign was spending $1 million a week in advertising in Michigan, even as McCain was sliding down in the Michigan polls. The McCain campaign also did not purchase commercial airtime in Michigan for next week, although the campaign did purchase airtime for every other state. Also according to the MSNBC story, resources will be sent "to Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida and other competitive states." The McCain campaign has spent millions of dollars in advertising--especially the negative TV advertising attacking Barack Obama--in Michigan, only to see Obama's lead increase over McCain. John McCain has been sinking precious campaign resources down a Michigan black hole. No wonder he is shifting those resources into Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida.
But John McCain still has a huge problem. If Michigan voters are trending over to Barack Obama, with only five weeks left before the election, could they also be trending over to Obama in the other toss-up states? For the past three weeks, we have seen a lot of economic turmoil and jitters, with the stock market gravitating wildly--the Dow has dropped 348 points today. There is still a lot of worry over Congress' $700-plus billion bailout package for Wall Street, which has passed the Senate yesterday, and is now going back to the House with an added $150 billion bribe. Couple this with the Republican control of the White House, and with only a quarter of the country supporting President Bush, John McCain is in an almost impossible position to win the White House. And finally, let us not forget that Democrat Barack Obama has run a nearly flawless campaign, even as the McCain campaign has been throwing every negative, kitchen-sink, attack advertising against Obama. This is just a huge example of how badly the McCain campaign is imploding.
Here is Republican presidential candidate John McCain on MSNBC's Morning Joe talking to co-host Mika Brzezinski about why McCain voted for this bill when McCain was angry at the pork padding to make the bailout plan more palatable. McCain's answer to the bailout plan was that "This bill is putting us on the brink of economic disaster." From YouTube:
This doesn't make any sense, when you consider that Senator McCain voted for the Senate bailout package. Does McCain even know that he voted for the Senate bailout bill which he now claims will "put us on the brink of economic disaster?" What is next? Will the McCain campaign start attacking Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama for supporting this Senate bailout package?
Watching this McCain campaign, I am struck by just how quickly this campaign is imploding in on itself. Here is a McCain campaign that cannot run on an issue-based campaign, since McCain is basically running Bush third term campaign of completely supporting the Bush administration. So the McCain campaign is stressing that this will be a campaign based on personality, even as the American people are turning their attention to the financial crisis and the economic issues that are affecting their pocketbooks. John McCain selects an unknown running mate in Alaska governor Sarah Palin without properly vetting Palin, bringing up huge questions of Palin's lack of experience, questions on her character and judgment, and corruption ties regarding the Troopergate scandal. McCain's selection of Palin also brings up questions of McCain's judgment and decision-making for selecting a running mate so inexperienced. And finally there has been the consistent goofs and gaffes that the McCain campaign has made since the Republican convention--and that doesn't even include the disastrous Sarah Palin interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. And let us also not forget that tonight is the vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden.
WASHINGTON — After one spectacular failure, the $700 billion financial industry bailout found a second life Wednesday, winning lopsided passage in the Senate and gaining ground in the House, where Republicans opposition softened.
Senators loaded the economic rescue bill with tax breaks and other sweeteners before passing it by a wide margin, 74-25, a month before the presidential and congressional elections.
In the House, leaders were working feverishly to convert enough opponents of the bill to push it through by Friday, just days after lawmakers there stunningly rejected an earlier version and sent markets plunging around the globe.
The measure didn't cause the same uproar in the Senate, where both parties' presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, made rare appearances to cast "aye" votes, as did Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.
In the final vote, 39 Democrats, 34 Republicans and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted "yes." Nine Democrats, 15 Republicans and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont voted "no."
President Bush issued a statement praising the Senate's move. With the revisions, Bush said, "I believe members of both parties in the House can support this legislation. The American people expect and our economy demands that the House pass this good bill this week and send it to my desk."
When the House took up the vote for the Paulson Wall Street bailout bill last Monday, September 29th, the House voted down the bill, 228-205, with 133 Republicans voting against the bill. The Dow plummeted 777 points as the House rejected the bailout plan. The Republicans blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "scathing speech near the close of the debate — which attacked Bush's economic policies and a "right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation" of financial markets — for the vote's failure." This was a cop-out. I'm thinking that the House Republicans looked at the $700 billion price tag, took a huge, collective gulp, and then voted against the bill.
Even as the Senate voted, House leaders were hunting for the 12 votes they would need to turn around Monday's 228-205 defeat. They were especially targeting the 133 Republicans who voted "no."
Their opposition appeared to be easing after the Senate added $110 billion in tax breaks for businesses and the middle class, plus a provision to raise, from $100,000 to $250,000, the cap on federal deposit insurance.
They were also cheering a decision Tuesday by the Securities and Exchange Commission to ease rules that force companies to devalue assets on their balance sheets to reflect the price they can get on the market.
There were worries, though, that the tax breaks would cause some conservative-leaning "Blue Dog" Democrats who voted for the rescue Monday to abandon it. The bill doesn't designate a way to pay for many of the tax cuts, and Blue Dogs typically oppose any measure that swells the deficit.
Of course, this $110 billion Senate bribe is now causing concern among the Blue Dog Democrats who, while they voted for the $700 billion bailout plan, may reject the Senate's version of the bailout plan because of this extra government debt being tacked on by this bribe. So while the House leadership is trying to round up enough Republican support for the bailout bill, they are also alienating the Blue Dog Democrats who originally supported this bill, because of this bribe.
Talk about herding cats.
Some type of bailout plan will have to passed by the House. It may not have the $110 to $150 billion tax break bribe that the Senate is offering, but some type of government action will be needed to calm the credit markets here. This action could even be temporary, at least until after January, 2009, when a new president is sworn in, and improved legislation could be negotiated between Congress and the White House. Instead of shoving a $700-plus billion dollar bailout boondoggle down Congress' throat, why not send a $300 billion temporary bailout to cover the rest of this year? And then in January, have the new president, whether it is John McCain or Barack Obama, start working with Congress on new legislation to fix this credit crisis in the financial system. We are seeing just too much uncertainty in the markets now--both with the credit crisis and subprime mortgage mess roiling the financial markets, and the U.S. presidential election which is causing even more Wall Street jitters because the next president will have to deal with this mess.
I do not know how the House will vote on this latest Senate bailout bill. President Bush is placing intense pressure on the House to pass this bailout bill, however I wonder just how far the House will go with a 26 percent job approval rating, lame-duck, president. If the House is going to approve this bailout bill, it may be because of the latest economic news showing a serious downturn in the U.S. economy. U.S. jobless claims have already jumped due to the hurricanes slamming the Gulf Coast, with the "seasonally adjusted first-time claims for unemployment benefits rose 1,000 to stand at 497,000-- the highest since late September 2001." A second hit of bad economic news is that the demand for U.S. factory goods fell four percent, worst than the three percent drop expected by economist surveyed by Marketwatch. This is the fastest rate drop in two years in August. Factory orders has risen 0.7 percent in July, revised down from a 1.3 percent estimate given in June. Finally, economists are now saying that a U.S. recession is now certain:
The big economic forecasting firms are in the process of updating their forecasts following the release of key data on consumer spending. While the final numbers aren't available yet, forecasters say it doesn't look good.
The economy seems to be on the "edge of the abyss," said Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, which will update its forecast on Friday.
"Anyone who's wondering if there's a recession should stop wondering," said Nigel Gault, U.S. economist for Global Insight, which will release its updated forecast on Monday. "The recent data were deteriorating sharply" even before factoring in the latest impact of the credit squeeze.
Global Insight doesn't think the recovery will be quick or powerful. The economy will likely contract for three quarters and then show weak growth in the second quarter next year.
If the recession lasts from December 2007 until April 2009, as Gault suspects it will, it would be the longest since the Great Depression. And the recovery, when it comes, won't feel anything like a boom.
"It's difficult to see a real rapid recovery, certainly at the beginning," Gault said. Typically, the economy recovers when the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates to stimulate credit-sensitive consumer purchases of housing and autos.
But with credit markets jammed and consumers already reeling from too much debt, lower rates won't have the usual impact on the economy. "The Fed won't have any ammo left," Gault said.
For the past two weeks, former Saturday Night Live cast member Tina Fey has agreed to return to SNL for a series of skits parodying Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. And Tina Fey was just brilliant, completely spot-on with Palin's tone, mannerisms, and her behavior. Tina Fey looks like a dead-ringer for Sarah Palin. Here is Fey's first Palin skit, with Amy Poehler playing Hillary Clinton, from SNL's September 20th show:
And here is Fey's second Sarah Palin skit, parodying Palin's interview with CBS's Katie Couric, again played by Amy Poehler, on September 27th:
Of course, the SNL writers were especially brilliant in incorporating Sarah Palin's own answer during the Couric interview into the Tina Fey parody. From Keith Olbermann:
It is really bad when a candidate's own words are being used as the punchline for a comedic sketch. Tomorrow, Palin will be attending the vice presidential debate with Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden. I wonder what the SNL writers will be creating from Palin's debate with Biden?
Let the record reflect that Barack Obama made the approach to John McCain tonight.
As the two shared the Senate floor tonight for the first time since they won their party nominations, Obama stood chatting with Democrats on his side of the aisle, and McCain stood on the Republican side of the aisle.
So Obama crossed over into enemy territory.
He walked over to where McCain was chatting with Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida and Independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. And he stretched out his arm and offered his hand to McCain.
McCain shook it, but with a “go away” look that no one could miss. He tried his best not to even look at Obama.
Finally, with a tight smile, McCain managed a greeting: “Good to see you.”
Obama got the message. He shook hands with Martinez and Lieberman — both of whom greeted him more warmly — and quickly beat a retreat back to the Democratic side.
John McCain almost refused to shake Obama's hand on the Senate floor today. But McCain forced himself to shake hands with the "go away" look, and then refused to look at Obama. McCain refused to look at Obama in the eye during Friday's debate. And now this Senate floor spectacle between the presidential candidates. This shows a deep-seated anger, contempt, and hatred that John McCain has against Barack Obama. And while Friday's debate may have been too close to call, McCain appeared grouchy,condescending, and even troll-like. This is not a favorable appearance for a candidate that is trying to be elected into the highest office in the land.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain sat down with the editorial board for the Des Moines Register for an interview on September 30th. In this interview, we see a John McCain that is surly, hard-edged, and mean. Here is the full interview from the Des Moines Register.
And here is John McCain defending his Straight Talk Express. From YouTube:
An emphatic, combative and at times surly John McCain today tangled with the Des Moines Register editorial board over his running mate, the nature of his campaign and whether he can appreciate the health care needs of Americans.
The paper posted a series of clips from the session on their website.
It's a hard-edged McCain that is rarely seen on film
Facing questions from liberal-leaning editors -- though ones that endorsed his candidacy before the caucuses -- McCain offered a robust defense of Sarah Palin.
"So, with due respect, I strongly disagree with your premise that she doesn't have experience and knowledge and background," McCain said after listing Palin's qualifications. "I fundamentaly disagree and I'm proud of her record."
After touting Palin further, McCain seemed to realize he may have been coming on too strong.
"And, by the way," McCain began before saying, "I'll stop there."
"But you and I just have a fundamental disagreement and I'm so happy that the American people seem to be siding with me," he said.
When it was pointed out that there were some doubts about Palin's experience, even among conservative Republicans, McCain replied sarcastically: "Really? I haven't detected that."
He portrayed conservative critics of Palin as those hailing from the "Georgetown cocktail party" set.
If you just listen to McCain's answers from this interview, you can just hear the anger and sarcasm that McCain has against Barack Obama, the Democrats, the Des Moines Register editorial board, and perhaps even the American people. It is a hard edge of McCain that you do not see during the campagin-controlled stump speeches and rallies.
What the frickin' heck? If I were a dictator of which I always aspired to be? I don't want a dictator as president--we've already seen one dictator sitting in the White House, so we don't need another. And here is John McCain, claiming that he aspired to become a dictator.
I could only sit through 30 minutes of the McCain interview, before turning it off. John McCain is just scary, when considering that he could be elected president. His entire domestic and foreign policy is a third term continuation of the Bush administration--more tax cuts to the rich and government deregulation for corporations. John McCain would bomb Iran. John McCain is a warmonger, who would continue the 100-year U.S. war in Iraq. John McCain would love to send us back to the good ole Cold War days with Russia. And the inexperienced, and corrupt, Sarah Palin would still be a heartbeat away from the presidency. John McCain is just not qualified to be president of this country. He is too old for the office, not as intelligent or sharp than he was, and is too hot-tempered and angry to be in office. That makes him a scary candidate in just what impulsive, and disastrous, direction McCain could send this country into.
I'm not even sure what to say about this. From NPR:
One day before the vice presidential debate, McCain extolled his faith in running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and her knowledge of foreign policy.
Palin is a relative political novice, and questions about her readiness to step in as commander in chief if necessary have intensified in the wake of an interview with Katie Couric of CBS News that was roundly criticized. Some conservative pundits have even suggested that Palin should step down. But McCain defended his VP choice.
"I've turned to her for advice many times in the past," McCain says. "I can't imagine turning to Sen. [Barack] Obama or [Sen. Joseph] Biden because they've been wrong. They were wrong about Iraq. They were wrong about Russia."
So here is John McCain, who is supposed to be an expert on foreign affairs, asking novice Sarah Palin for advice on foreign policy matters from the past? Throughout this campaign, McCain has claimed that he should be elected president because he is more experienced in foreign policy matters than Barack Obama, and yet McCain is turning to Sarah Palin, who McCain has probably known Palin for about a month, for foreign policy advice? This doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Mr. McCain’s advisers said Friday that Mr. McCain was well aware that Ms. Palin would be criticized for her lack of foreign policy experience, but that he viewed her as exceptionally talented and intelligent and that he felt she would be able to be educated quickly.
“She’s going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he’ll be around at least that long,” said Charlie Black, one of Mr. McCain’s top advisers, making light of concerns about Mr. McCain’s health, which Mr. McCain’s doctors reported as excellent in May.
Who is the master and who is the apprentice in this campaign?
I've been a little busy over the last four days to do blogging. I had a friend come down for the weekend photographing Villa Montalvo. It is a beautiful park and cultural arts center with a number of hiking trails, located in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. So I didn't get a chance to watch the first presidential debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama.
First, I've noticed that John McCain will never look at Barack Obama. McCain will look at the podium, McCain will look at the audience, McCain will look at moderator Jim Lehrer. But John McCain would never look at Barack Obama. I found that interesting. What emotions were swirling around McCain's mind during that debate? Was McCain ashamed to look at Obama because of the dishonesty of McCain's campaign? Or did John McCain feel anger, disgust, and contempt against Obama, perhaps for destroying what should have been McCain's divine right of succession to the Oval Office? Or perhaps McCain was suppressing too much of his famous temper, and that one look at Obama would cause McCain's head to turn red, steam hissing out of his ears, before exploding into tiny, vaporized fragments onstage? And if Candidate McCain could not look at Obama during the debate, then how could a President McCain look at a foreign leader of an adversarial country during a negotiation--say, a Hugo Chavez of Venezuala? Or a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran? Or is a President McCain even willing to talk to such leaders of adversarial nations against the United States?
The first question Lehrer posed to both McCain and Obama on the financial bailout reveals a lot about both candidates, and their policy issues. On that first question, Obama presented four points on cleaning up the financial sector--increasing government oversight in the financial markets, making sure the American taxpayer will receive a return on their dollars invested into this bailout, curbing CEO golden parachutes, and finally helping American homeowners in renegotiating their home loans from foreclosures. McCain's answer was that Democrats and Republicans are negotiating in a bipartisan manner, and that John McCain was responsible for bringing the bipartisan negotiations to this financial bailout plan. McCain never presented any plan, or whatever he believes, in resolving the financial crisis on Wall Street.
And that is interesting, because going through the YouTube video, and the transcript, John McCain doesn't present any plan, or legislative agenda, for the economy and the financial crisis. McCain simply attacked Obama on every policy issue--financial bailout, energy, education, earmarks, everything. According to John McCain, Barack Obama is wrong about every issue, and John McCain will ride in, as a knight on a white horse, to save the country. Of course, McCain doesn't present any plan on how a President McCain will save the country--except that President McCain will bring "change" to the country. However Candidate John McCain refuses to tell the American people what President McCain's legislative agenda will be for bringing such change to the country. All we hear from Candidate McCain is to vote for President McCain because Barack Obama is just wrong.
And yet, John McCain refuses to look Barack Obama in the eye and tell Obama that he is wrong.
On foreign policy, the big question still revolves around the U.S. war in Iraq. And again, we have the huge difference of opinion between John McCain and Barack Obama. McCain insists that the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq, and I get the impression that John McCain will continue this war for another four to eight years, if McCain is elected. And again, McCain refuses to explain his Iraq strategy, except that the U.S. is winning in Iraq, and that Barack Obama will lose the war in Iraq, since Obama will withdrawal U.S. troops from Iraq.
Obama: Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.
They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.
And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.
You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is...
LEHRER: Senator Obama...
OBAMA: ... of judgment, of whether or not -- of whether or not -- if the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment.
This is an especially powerful attack against McCain in questioning McCain's judgment on the war in Iraq. John McCain's "new strategy" has always been to continue the U.S. war in Iraq, even when an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the war. It is almost like McCain is running on a warmongering platform, while at the same time McCain is avoiding to say that he is pro-war. Obama slams McCain on that.
So who won the debate? I am almost tempted to say that it was a tie, with a slight nod going to Obama. Obama supporters will say that Obama won the debate. McCain supporters will say that McCain won the debate. Both candidates didn't make any serious flubs. McCain appeared more dishonest in the debate because McCain refused to look at Obama during the entire time. Obama had an annoying habit of first agreeing with McCain on this point or that point, before trying to explain why McCain was then wrong on the policy point. McCain never bothered to present his policy agenda, instead consistently attacking Obama on everything, and then claiming that McCain held the mantle of change (even though McCain refused to tell the American people the details of his own policy agenda for change really is). Obama presented his own vision of where to lead the country on the financial crisis, the U.S. war in Iraq, and the future of US-foreign relations. McCain simply used the debate as a 90-minute attack ad against Obama. McCain's vision was "vote for me, because Barack Obama is wrong for the country--Barack Obama would raise taxes, have government intrude on you, surrender to Iraq and the terrorists. In other words, Barack Obama is the bogyman.
So in conclusion, the debate was really about a vision of change, that Barack Obama presented to the American people, verses a vision of fear, that John McCain presented to the American people. Looking at how the McCain campaign has imploded after the Republican convention, at how the McCain campaign has relentlessly attacked Obama with constant lies and negativity, and how the McCain campaign has lied to the American people about everything, I would say that the greater fear and bogyman for this country is John McCain. John McCain claims that he is a candidate of change, but refuses to provide policy details of how he will change the direction of the country. McCain claims that he will clean up Washington, while an army of lobbyists work on his campaign. McCain is a warmonger, who will continue the disastrous U.S. war in Iraq with no resolution. John McCain's legislative agenda is a continuation of a Bush third term, with more tax cuts to the rich, more government deregulation, more domestic drilling for Big Oil, more goodies given away to big corporations. I don't see any change in the country's direction with a President McCain. So I will vote for Barack Obama, not because I believe in Obama's policies over McCain's. I will vote for Barack Obama because I believe that a President McCain will be far worst than George W. Bush. It will not be because a McCain administration will just be another third Bush term, but also because of an issue that was never raised in this debate--an inexperienced Vice President Sarah Palin to succeed McCain in the Oval Office, if McCain does die in his first term in office. A McCain / Palin administration is a scary continuation of this GOP disaster of an executive government that is sending this country down a sheer cliff.
