September 2008 Archives

Yesterday the stock market dropped over 777 points, or about 7% because a proposed $700 billion bailout did not pass the House of Representatives. Hopefully you already know all of this and this is not the first time you're hearing about this. A lot of politicians, including our own president and his appointees have come on the news and told us that we MUST DO SOMETHING NOW to get the bailout passed. Frankly I'm happy to see the current administration twisting in the wind.

Seven years ago (too many damn sevens) the Bush administration came to us and promised us the end of the world if we did not grant him powers never before wielded by the president and overreaching authority to do what he wanted. Congress rolled over and gave him the PATRIOT Act. Five years ago Bush went before us again and asked us to give him more authority and more powers and the freedom to invade Iraq as he saw fit. We were again promised death, destruction, and the end of the American way of life if we did not immediately give him what he wanted. Congress, and this nation in general, rolled over and now we are mired in a war we should never have been in. So now we face another situation where the President (and others) are using the same grave language in an attempt to force us to swallow a trillion dollar loan to Wall Street. But somehow, the press, and Congress have found their courage and are taking the administration to task.

This correction we are facing, the instability we are facing is still less than the one day drop of 22% we faced in 1987, or the two day 13 and 12% drops seen before the Great Depression. 7% is the amount the market crashed the day the markets opened after Sept 11th. We've come back from that crash, and we will come back from this one too.

What galls me about this is two things:

1. Between 2001 and 2005 we had a round of corrupt corporations close and we were told by our President that he had "cleaned up Wall Street". Apparently not. Nothing was cleaned up. If anything, the problem was swept deeper under the rug in the hope that it would stay hidden until he was out of office. There was a possibility to nip this problem in the bud before it became a problem and institute real reforms but, AGAIN, our leaders were asleep at the switch. And now Bush wants to heap the blame on us. This is somehow all our fault.

2. These same banks that are now crawling to the government seeking relief are the same ones who were before Congress 4 years ago demanding a change to the Bankruptcy laws. They said they were being punished by borrowers trying to discharge their debt and it wasn't fair to let people skate by without paying back what they were required to. And now, NOW? Well they are before Hank Paulson and others saying they cannot manage their own money and they want a free loan from the taxpayers to cover the shortfall. It's offensive. It's ludicrous. And to further salt the wounds of ordinary Americans, these are the same banks that refused to renegotiate the mortgages of struggling borrowers starting two years ago. Their argument that somehow borrowers should have known what they were getting into does not seem to hold water when it is now the banks that are saying "We didn't know what we were getting ourselves into."

I say the banks need to be punished. I think the banks should be thankful that people have not thus far marched on them and burnt them to the ground. I am not surprised that Congress has suddenly found their will to speak out and act. They feel and hear the anger of Americans from small town to large city demanding that we hold the guilty responsible. Now is the time to act. We do not need to turn to full scale socialism, but we most certainly need to sweep the halls and high-rises clean. The corruption and rot has to be cut out of the system. And it needs to be done now.

McCain has put his campaign on hold and has canceled his debate appearance tomorrow saying that he needs to be in Washington to help broker a deal to bailout the banking industry. He made the statement that now is the time to be above political rhetoric, but clearly this is not the time to be above political stunts.

That's what this is.

It's a stunt to divert attention away from his campaign and somehow paint himself as a "can-do guy". But canceling his appearance at the debate flies in the face of everything he's been saying for months now. McCain has stated again and again that he wanted to have townhall meetings with Obama and wanted to debate the issues. Now that we're on the eve of actually having that first debate McCain wants to back down.

Yes, I can hear you say that this is an important and critical time and he needs to be available. But when that proverbial 3am call comes in, the President can't call a timeout while he deals with that one issue.

The fact that McCain won't debate shows that either he's desperate and clutching at straws, or he is completely unfit to be president.

Either way, this stunt is unacceptable and should be decried.

A lot of different people have been commenting on how much McCain has been changing his message and stands on issues as each week progresses. Perhaps that's nothing new, Obama did pretty quickly reverse his stance on offshore drilling, but it's startling how quickly the change happens.

I am not one to slight a person for rethinking their positions. Growth happens, and it is precisely this attitude of "I've made up my mind and I won't change it" that the current administration has stuck by to our clear detriment.

But...still, I can't help but think of something I heard recently on the campaign trail...

"The American Presidency is not supposed to be a journey of person discovery".

(Source - http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/09/choice-palin-quote-on-personal-journey.html)

Last night I had a dream that John McCain was the head of the New York Philharmonic and picked Sarah Palin to be his first violin without hearing her play. I know it's a laughable comparison, and probably a specious one at that but it stuck with my long enough for me to want to mention it again. It is unfair in a sense because it's not as if Palin's never been a leader, and so McCain presumably had some measure of her abilities before choosing her. But I also think it holds this kernel of truth in that a position of first chair in any instrument at the New York Philharmonic is important, and if the conductor just picked some random person who may or may not be talented from a large pool of applicants based on one hearing and his intuition, then people would be in an uproar, and that's just a symphony orchestra.

I think the important thing here is something I heard Paul Begala say. McCain made a decision with his "gut" and holds that up as the sign of a maverick, but we've had eight years of leadership by the gut, and not a whole hell of a lot of thinking, and it's gotten us nowhere. I don't think that that's going to change just because of the guy at the top. Furthermore, if this is the type of thinking that McCain puts into a position like this, what kind of research and thinking will he put into other key areas? I firmly believe that instinct and intuition are a key component of intelligence, and we need to be able to heed them, but they're not the only component of intelligence.

McCain is speaking and acting like a man who's only working off his gut. And that's a dangerous think for a leader of a nation as big as ours.

The media, both traditional and blogs, have been aflame about Sarah Palin since McCain picked her as his running mate last week. I promised an article about her and this is it. I know it's well after the fact, but I wanted to give myself time to think and let the initial hysteria on all sides of the aisle to die down.

There are several things that I frankly don't care about:

1. I don't care that she's a member of the NRA. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who knows me. I am not a gun owner, but I am a staunch supporter of people's right to bear arms. I will continue to support that right. Gun ownership is not only good for personal security, it is also vital for the protection of our fundamental liberties. That Gov. Palin supports that right is great. It's not a make or break issue for me, but I'm happy to see a candidate that feels as strongly about gun ownership rights as I do.


2. I don't care that Bristol Palin is pregnant. What happens in the Palin home is a private matter and children should not be used as pawns or targets in elections. I'm happy that Obama came out and said as much. I don't think that he personally will use the issue against them, but I know that a lot of blogs have used it already to both mock her and rally to her side. Bristol is 17 and 17-year-olds in this country make decisions without their parent's consent all the time. Now is clearly no different. Just because Bristol's mom is the governor doesn't lend her any more authority at home.


3. I don't care that her husband once belonged to a secessionist party. Spouses disagree on politics, and Todd Palin felt differently than his wife. He still might. I don't see why this is an issue. Politics is a matter of both emotions and personal philosophy, and there are valid reasons to seek answers to our political questions in independent parties. This notion of secession is not even unique to the US. It shows up all around the world. In the interests of full disclosure I would like to point out that I am a member of the Free State Project and fully support its efforts.


4. I don't care if she wore a Pat Buchanan button. It's not even clear if she wore the button or not, but I don't care. I don't even care if she voted for him. The time in question about the whole Buchanan button affair comes from when she was mayor of Wasilla and Buchanan stopped in the town for a campaign event. It'd perfectly natural for a mayor to wear a button for a candidate out of respect for them, and she might have even liked his politics at the time. This was back when Buchanan was not quite the controversial figure he is today. I think it was beyond appropriate for the Obama campaign worker in Florida to attempt to draw a link from Buchanan's seemingly pro-Nazi stance and Palin. I haven't seen or heard anything from Governor Palin which indicates she's a Nazi and I highly doubt she is


5. I don't care that Sarah Palin is a woman. I can't honestly claim to know what McCain's strategy was in picking Sarah Palin, if he even had one. What I want to do is talk about the issues in play, and her gender does not play into that. I'm not sure why everyone questions if she's even able to be a leader because she's a woman, or because she's a mother, or because she's a mother of five, ad nauseum. There have plenty of women in history that have been more than capable leaders, and there's nothing inherently gynecological that prevents her from being a great leader.

Having got all of that out of the way, here's what bothers me about Sarah Palin.

1. I don't like that she's holding herself up as a reformer when she really isn't. The McCain campaign keeps highlighting that she was opposed to Ted Steven's "bridge to nowhere", but she really wasn't. She initially supported the bridge and welcomed it's construction. Only after public opinion turned against the bridge did she have second thoughts, and when the project was canceled, she kept the federal money that'd already been given to Alaska. Furthermore, one of her first acts as the mayor of Wasilla was to hire a law firm that specialized in soliciting earmarks from Washington. In fact, in her terms as mayor, the city of Wasilla received more federal money than it ever had in its history. This is not the record of a reformer.

   On top of this, she is under investigation for trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired while he was embroiled in a bitter custody dispute. There are an abundance of abuse of power stories in politics, but when someone stands up and says "I really am different and I'm here to clean things up!" they'd better mean it.

   Lastly, a lot of pundits are saying that Palin worked magic with the budget of Alaska since she's been governor. It is honestly not hard to make the Alaska budget work when you're as flush with oil money as the state is.



2. I don't like that she's addressing the officers of our military and exhorting them to do "God's Work". This is not a Christian nation. Ours is not a Christian military, and the missions it takes out should not be considered "God's Work". Our military represents and protects the 300 million Americans who live in our nation. A secular nation. Whether or not the majority of our population claims to be Christian, we were founded to be a nation where all religions are respected. Our military must be the purest distillation of this ideal because they are the forces that must defend it.

   Taking a step back from the specific incident I mentioned, I also want to mention that I'm absolutely frustrated that Palin's pastor has preached sermons that are just as incendiary and filled with invective as those that Jeremiah Wright has preached and the media's done nothing to follow up on it. If the personal politics of Rev. Wright were so important to consider, then certainly it should be questioned when her pastor says:

   "I hate criticisms towards the President, because it's like criticisms towards the pastor -- it's almost like, it's not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That's what it'll get you."

3. I don't like that as a VP choice she comes from the largest oil-producing state in our country and her husband works for an oil company. I am not suggesting malfeasance here. Let me repeat that. I am not suggesting that there is any thing untoward or underhanded going on here. What bothers me about this is that we've got McCain collecting money hand-over-fist from the oil companies and a VP pick who is heavily invested in oil companies as the possible leaders of our nation. We badly need a plan for the future away from oil and I don't think that that kind of leadership is going to come from these two.

   Furthermore, I think her environmental policies in Alaska have been awful. Palin does not believe in global warming. She doesn't think that we need to worry about it. I don't think that being that dismissive about the environment is good leadership. It's not even being a good Christian, which Palin swears to be.



4. I don't like that she wants to end a woman's right to an abortion. I firmly believe that our bodies are ours to rule over. What we choose to do with them should be left to our choices, as long as it does not hurt another person. This includes using drugs and alcohol, consensual sex amongst adults, and abortion. While it is clearly open to debate as to whether or not aborting the fetus is killing another human being, it is the plain truth that pregnancy can be dangerous to women. Women still continue to die while pregnant and during child birth. I absolutely believe that abortion should be a last resort move, but access to it should not be cut off. That is what being pro-choice really is about. Being able to make a choice. Making abortion illegal will not end it, any more than making drugs illegal has not ended their use. Instead it will drive abortions back to the shadows, putting more women at more risk. This is a failed policy from the get go.

   While we're at it, I want to point out that Palin wants to take away a woman's right to choice but when they released their press release about Bristol Palin they said that she had made the "decision" to have the baby. Decision implies she had a choice, which is exactly what Gov. Palin wants to take away from women.

   And another point that continues to bother me. Republicans have continued to say that Bristol's pregnancy is a personal matter and should not be used for political gain by the Democrats, and then immediately spin around and say it shows her dedication to being pro-life. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim that the matter's off-limits and then try to spin it.



5. I don't like that Sarah Palin is against equal rights for gays. History has been clear. There is a constant give and take: governments seek to limit the rights of minority groups, groups that are due equality under law. Apartheid, Jim Crow, sixty years ago our own government sought to prevent inter-racial couples from marrying. Today they're all clearly wrong. And yet we continue to have people, a lot of people (like Gov. Palin and John McCain), in our country and government who would tell us that it is okay to limit the rights of gay people. They say it's not only okay, they tell us it's the moral thing to do.

   I do not believe that what two consenting people (or more) do in their home is the purview of the government. Furthermore, when people enter into a relationship with each other and seek legal protections, we should make it available to them. Marriage is not solely a religious matter. It is also a civil and legal matter, and we should not deny people the rights they seek.

   And to those who say we can't allow people to be married when they're gay because of what the Bible says, I'd like to point out that in the Bible, 1 Timothy 2, it says that women are not to have a position of authority over men, so by this very verse Palin has broken the "Lord's word" by being governor.

   By the way, it was verses like that, and others, that were used to deny women positions of power around the world and to deny them the right to vote. Those people were wrong then, just as they are now about gay people.

6. I really detest how dismissive she has been about "community organizers". You know, I get that it was intended as a dig at Obama himself, and that it was political theater, but it was so despicable. It's is not just because I have donated my time to causes, and have given money to community organizations, but also because Palin claims to be a Christian and gives lip service to Jesus, but what was he, aside from the Son of God? Oh, that's right, he was a community organizer. So was Gandhi. Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr, the list goes on.

   To mock their important work smacks of elitism. Only an elitist would find work done for the community as somehow "beneath them". As if serving something larger than yourself is contemptible. Which is funny to hear coming from a party sponsoring a military man for the presidency.
   

I wrote a few days ago about where McCain was when Katrina hit, and the GOP's plans to postpone their convention because they didn't want to appear to be partying during a disaster. I said that it was a shame that they were doing this out of appearances, and not because the staffers who would be at the convention are needed elsewhere to manage what was happening in the Gulf of Mexico.

Since I wrote that I've learned that several people have canceled their plans to attend the convention in order to be on hand to help if the need arises. One person of note is Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who was a keynote speaker at the convention, and had several other events to lead as the head of the Texas delegation. Once Gustav appeared certain to hit Texas he affirmed he would stay in Texas. So I applaud him.

News has also come out that McCain and Palin are headed to Jackson, Mississippi at the invitation of Gov. Barbour to review disaster preparations and track the storm's progress.

In an interview taped on Saturday, McCain confirmed that the GOP is changing convention plans based on Gustav. He said:

"It just wouldn't be appropriate to have a festive occasion while a near tragedy or a terrible challenge is presented in the form of a natural disaster...So we're monitoring it from day to day, and I'm saying a few prayers, too."

(Source: http://www.myfoxgulfcoast.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7326767&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1)

None of that jives with what I wrote about before, when he stood for a photo-op with Bush and cake to celebrate his 69th birthday and they had a laughing good time.

But in this case, McCain went, more likely on Barbour's invitation than anything else. Beyond receiving a briefing about the hurricane, it's not clear what McCain's presence offers, but at least he's not standing around with icing on his face.

In the meantime, Obama's preparing to solicit volunteers and donations from his database of supporters:

Sen. Obama gathered the pool outside after services at St. Luke's Lutheran Church. He told us that his camapaign plans to mobilize its huge e-mail list of supporters to volunteer or send money once the impact of Gustav becomes apparent and authorities know better what kind of help is needed. He said his campaign is coordinating with local authorities.

"We can activate an e-mail list of a couple million people who want to give back," he said. "I think we can get tons of volunteers to travel down there if it becomes necessary."

(Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Obama_will_mobilize_volunteers_for_Gustav.html?showall)

That's a definite contrast in leadership.

Oh and while I'm talking about this subject, I wanted to point out one other thing:
McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, went after Obama saying:

"So he attacks us while there's a hurricane going on and John McCain suspends his convention basically. What bigger contrast can you have about putting your country first?"

...

"It's pretty for him to set politics behind his country," Davis stated. "He does it all the time. Believe me, it's not the easiest way in the world to run a campaign. But this is business as usual in McCainworld."
...

"I thought Barack Obama said the other night that everybody puts their country first," he said with a touch of sarcasm. "Really?"

(Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/McCain_chief_hits_Obama_for_playing_politics_as_Gustav_looms.html)

So other than travel to Jackson on Sunday, what else was McCain doing this weekend? Filling sandbags to shore up levies? Dialing up his rich contributors to solicit donations to help those in need after Gustav? Taking a few days rest to really get to know his VP choice? Nope, he was at a campaign even with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, amongst others. Apparently Rick Davis believes that's setting politics aside for the sake of the country.