Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: NY: Brooklyn man tased, falls to death from fire escape Previous entry: Obama’s Katri…Katri…Jesus, Hugh, Really?

McCain must have money on Obama

That’s the only thing that makes sense.  The hare-brained scheme to duck the debates by pretending to be above it all isn’t fooling anyone—-even the grumpy trolls defending it on the blogs see it as a political ploy, but just applaud McCain for appealing to their anti-social, “fuck the voters” mentality.  Walter Shapiro at Salon has a piece analyzing this move, and you can tell his mental status resembles the conversation in my house this morning.

Me: I think McCain has money on Obama.
Marc: I don’t know. The McCain campaign has done things that didn’t make sense to us, but ended up being good for them.
Me: Maybe. 

When someone does something this crazy, you have to wonder if they know something you don’t know.  Shapiro seems to be coming from the same place, pretty sure that this is pure bonehead, but afraid of coming out and saying so, because what if McCain’s insanity is actual secret genius?  So we get passages like this:

But whatever McCain’s underlying motivations, both campaigns are now locked in a bizarre game of chicken. If McCain actually boycotts the Oxford debate, Obama may score a public-relations coup while his Republican rival looks weak and evasive. Or the Democratic nominee may appear too political while McCain puts on his mantle as statesman. Republican strategist Rich Galen, who advised Fred Thompson in the primaries, said, “It’s a brilliant stroke by McCain. You will have an empty chair debate in Oxford without McCain. And an empty chair at the White House economic negotiations without Obama.”

The fact of the matter, though, is that the best person Shapiro could get to applaud this move helped run the campaign of someone with impeccable wingnut-appealing credentials (he looks manly on the teevee) into the ground during the primaries, so I don’t trust him.  Giuliani had a better campaign. 

And even if it was something close a toss-up between “too important a man for this piddly shit” and “evasive asshole who doesn’t think he has to talk to you people”, that will easily be rectified by Obama and the mainstream media that McCain is throwing the finger to.  If Obama is actually on stage with an empty chair beside him, it’s not like he’s going to sit there looking stupid, right?  Surely that means he gets a chance to speak, at least for a little while, and I have no doubt how he’s going to spin it.  He’s already doing so.

Speaking to reporters at an impromptu Florida press conference, Obama said that if all senators needed to be in Washington for the interim, “We’ve both got big planes. We’ve painted our slogans on the sides of them. They can get us from Washington, D.C., to Mississippi fairly quickly.”

And even if wasn’t already coming out strong on this, once you’ve committed to showing up, you have no other choice. 

But more to the point, McCain is telling the mainstream media that he thinks they’re a bunch of no-count losers and he doesn’t need them to win.  After all, the entire weekend talk show cycle has no doubt been scheduled and booked to discuss this debate.  McCain was always their best buddy, and now he’s saying the New York Times doesn’t practice journalism and basically insulting their very existence. And this has been building up—-even Fox News is angry about access issues.  If McCain doesn’t show up, the narrative that will shape up on the Sunday talk shows will be, “McCain is a coward.” 

It’s no secret that McCain is an overly dramatic crybaby tantrum-thrower.  Look, the man called his wife a cunt in front of journalists because she had the audacity to tease him.  Everyone knows he’s a screamer.  This whole stunt is probably one more example of this personality flaw of his.  But I think there’s something else to it.  I think McCain is really scarred by the ass-whupping that the Bush campaign delivered him in 2000, and ever since then, he has decided to out-Bush Bush.  For example, Bush is a liar.  So McCain is going to be an even more audacious liar.  And one of Bush’s favorite tricks was to limit access to the press so that they craved more from him and were willing to kiss his ass to get to him.  But McCain clearly doesn’t know how to play peek-a-boo properly.  Bush knew his audience well enough to know that times of crisis are when you deign to go out and talk to the press, preferably in some kind of manly man costume. Then you give off the impression that you’re like a superhero, hiding most of the time, but swooping out to save the day when necessary.  The only time he fucked this up was when 9/11 caught him with his pants down.*  And as soon as he recovered, he was at Ground Zero with a construction hat and a megaphone.  That’s how you play that game.  From a P.R. perspective, it seems that the timing of this bailout request and the debates couldn’t be better, because the audience will be craving displays of leadership and you’ve got a camera pointed right at you. 

Seriously, I hope he boycotts it.  So that the only person on camera offering leadership is Barack Obama.

*This is conclusive evidence that Bush’s people didn’t orchestrate it.  Why would they forget the most important element, which is getting him in front of the cameras with some dazzling rhetoric that they’d spent weeks or months preparing?

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 12:16 PM • (63) Comments

I bet Bob Barr would gladly fill McCain’s empty seat.

Comment #1: jon  on  09/25  at  12:23 PM

Seriously, wouldn’t it be cool if Obama said “If McCain doesn’t care enough about the political issues to come and debate, I know plenty of other serious candidates who do” and then encourage Oxford to inivte McKinney and Barr?  That would be super awesome.

Comment #2: Antigone  on  09/25  at  12:28 PM

I think he should bring a stuffed animal or a potted plant to sit at the other podium and use the hour to expound on his policy ideas.

Comment #3: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/25  at  12:31 PM

A cut-out of McCain, looking confused.

Comment #4: Antigone  on  09/25  at  12:33 PM

That would be awesome.  They’ve actuallt already sent letter to the debate comitee and offered up their time.  Barr, McKinney, and Nader!

Comment #5: raspberryjamba  on  09/25  at  12:35 PM

It reminds me of the moment in <u>The American President</u> where Michael J. Fox goes on his idealist rant to the President, Michael Douglas, telling him that he has to address the people about the pressing issue (which was a personal one, but which was also affecting things seriously for the upcoming election), and ends with the statement that these people are in a leadership desert and, barring water to drink, they will drink the sand if that’s all they’re given, and the other dude is an asshole who is being a loud talking head and giving them sand to drink while the president, though a good guy, just stood there with his thumb up the ass until Michael J. Fox got him to get his ass in gear.  You know, Aaron Sorkin stuff.

Only Obama’s not going to give them sand to drink, even if he is the only one talking.

To torture the metaphor, I find it amusing also because my boyfriend and I were going to play a drinking game during the debate where every time McCain said “catch phrase” (we hadn’t clarified yet; we have several potentials) we would drink alcohol, and every time Obama said “hope” or “change” we would drink water.

Looks like we’ll be drinking a lot of damn water, and so will everyone else.  Dumb bastard.  Maybe he DOES have money on Obama.  The only thing I find disappointing is that I’m missing a chance to get drunk and mock Straight Talk McMaverick.

Comment #6: Atheist Feminazi  on  09/25  at  12:37 PM

McCain doesn’t “have anything” on Obama. This wasn’t some kind of calculated move. McCain is a big gambler. He likes playing craps and taking big risks. This was a big gamble McCain decided to take in the hopes it would shake things up. I don’t think they thought more than 1 or 2 moves ahead (which seems to have been focused on canceling the Palin-Biden debate).

Comment #7: Tyro  on  09/25  at  12:39 PM

Or they could just project that famous photo of McCain looking all shocked and befuddled onto a screen onstage.

Comment #8: The Opoponax  on  09/25  at  12:41 PM

Obama can debate Alan Keys again.  That ought to be amusing…

If Alan is busy (yeah right), Pam Geller Oshry seems primed and ready to go…

Comment #9: MikeEss  on  09/25  at  12:43 PM

That would be awesome.  They’ve actuallt already sent letter to the debate comitee and offered up their time.  Barr, McKinney, and Nader!

Hardly.  If Barr, McKinney, and Nader know how to do something well, its to turn a solemn and important procedure into a humongous farce.  Obama would have to keep all three of them in line.  They’ve all got a beef against the Democratic Party in general - particularly Nader - and I can quickly see a McCain-less debate turning into a disaster for Obama.

The general theme of third party candidates typically runs along the lines of “The other two parties are the same, vote for a real alternative - me!”  I’d love to see a conversation that drags Obama back to the left on rhetoric, but I don’t think the rest of the country would like it very much.  If there was a serious third party contender - a Ross Perot - in the race, I’d consider it a good idea.  I’d love to see the GOP vote fractured even further.  I’d love to see the Dems forced to take a more populist stand among true Naderite populists.  But I don’t think it would help Obama’s electoral chances in the least.

Comment #10: Zifnab25  on  09/25  at  12:48 PM

Chinese curse:  May you live in interesting times.

Wow.

I was enjoying the election season when it was entertaining.

Not so much, now that it’s interesting.

Couldn’t McCain and Obama (who both, let’s face it, are part of the problem) go have their meaningless debate, and designate Ron Paul to fix this mess in their stead.  He actually understands and predicted this.

Yes, I know:

This is where Amanda says mor on.
Mike says I’m stoopid and despicable.
Damian says he had a libertarian friend once who still owes him ten dollars.

Comment #11: Libertarian  on  09/25  at  12:50 PM

Everyone, pay attention to libertarian.  He’s lonely.

Comment #12: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/25  at  12:52 PM

This was a big gamble McCain decided to take in the hopes it would shake things up. I don’t think they thought more than 1 or 2 moves ahead (which seems to have been focused on canceling the Palin-Biden debate).

Canceling the debate.  Maybe “shaming” Obama into killing TV commercials for a while so that the McCain campaign could stop bleeding money for a bit.  Boost that old McMaverick image that has been flailing for a while.

But as far as how many moves they’re thinking ahead - they aren’t thinking ANY moves ahead.  They’re constantly thinking about their current move.  It’s been evident for a while that Schmidt’s plan is to own every single news cycle - that somehow he thinks that if the press is talking about McCain - good or bad - it damages Obama.  There might be a bit of insight there in that if the campaign comes down to substance and issues, Obama will win it because the country really is polling more in line with Obama on substance than on McCain.

So they’re thinking about this news cycle, and they’re doing it in a vacuum where they’re not really thinking about how this “Maverick Move” is going to play out a week or so down the road.  Folks joke that Obama’s playing chess and McCain is playing checkers, but I think it’s closer to the truth that Obama’s playing poker and McCain is playing Rock-Paper-Scissors.  Obama’s playing slow and careful - building up a pot of credibility with the voters.  McCain is shooting off with a different tactic left and right - not worrying about where he’s going to end up but just worrying about winning this round.

Comment #13: NonyNony  on  09/25  at  12:52 PM

That was a brilliant remark on 9/11, by the way. I’ve always felt that way. If it had been orchestrated or even suspected in advance by the Bushites, Bush would have been in NYC with a megaphone and a killer speech within six hours. Instead, it caught them just as flatfooted as the Reichstag fire caught Hitler, but as we should know by now, Fascists do their best work in improv.

Comment #14: sunsin  on  09/25  at  12:58 PM

Couldn’t McCain and Obama (who both, let’s face it, are part of the problem) go have their meaningless debate, and designate Ron Paul to fix this mess in their stead.  He actually understands and predicted this.

Ron Paul’s solution to the problem was to revert to a 19th Century economy and dissolve the IRS, the SEC, and the Federal Reserve.  I don’t think that’s going to help much.

That he understands and predicts the terrible clusterfuck headed our direction really doesn’t help given that his advice is to exacerbate the situation.

Comment #15: Zifnab25  on  09/25  at  12:59 PM

“Mike says I’m stoopid and despicable.”

Actually, it would be more like “Libertarian, you’re stupid and ignorant.”

And it really gives me no pleasure to say it either.  I wish there was some way I could help you understand the whole picture and see how loons like Ron Paul and rabid libertarian philosophy are recipes for disaster.  I have no motivation to see you live in a hell of your own creation — after all, I’ll be stuck in it too…

Comment #16: MikeEss  on  09/25  at  12:59 PM

So wait, McCain’s actually going to skip the debate?  He’s really going to do this?

*picks jaw up off the floor*

How does this not end badly for him?  There has to be some political logic to all this.  Does anyone have the first clue what it is?

Comment #17: randomliberal  on  09/25  at  12:59 PM

There has to be some political logic to all this.  Does anyone have the first clue what it is?

D00d, she already said it - McCain has money on Obama.  What’s so hard to understand?  ::winks::

Comment #18: Atheist Feminazi  on  09/25  at  01:02 PM

Why doesn’t the Democratic party get together and set Obama up as their Presidential Leader and let him show his stuff?

It would be amazing to watch, he knows how to frame it as “fighting for middle class interests” and would be effective campaigning.

Comment #19: Ms Kate  on  09/25  at  01:04 PM

Amanda:

Everyone, pay attention to libertarian. He’s lonely.

Not so. Militant solipsists are ideologically incapable of feeling loneliness.

They’re like Terminator T-1000s made out of sour cream, Cheetos dust and beer farts instead of wicked-awesome mimetic polyalloy.

Comment #20: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  09/25  at  01:09 PM

This first day after he does this, Rasmussen (a polling outfit hat Fox News uses, run by an evangelical wingnut, no less) has Obama up by two. In North Carolina.

McCain is toast.

Comment #21: Ben D.  on  09/25  at  01:10 PM

Yeah, thanks for the help there, INTPagan…wink wink nudge nudge say no more…

Seriously, though, my friends, is there nothing?  Someone help me understand this.  I’ve gotten every other move that the McCain campaign has made, even if the logic behind it made my head hurt, but this one I just don’t get.

Comment #22: randomliberal  on  09/25  at  01:20 PM

Shorter Libertarian: Ron Paul and his Manly Man Thundercock will save us! And then it’ll take us to a magical land filled with sunshine and rainbows and flowers and unicorns and… you get the idea.

BUT THINK OF- oh god I’m not going to go into that.

Comment #23: StarStorm  on  09/25  at  01:24 PM

I’d like to see Ron Paul in charge of things.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As long as I can watch the inevitable crash and burn from Canada ... smile

Comment #24: Richard Goblin  on  09/25  at  01:28 PM

For those actually interested in the issue, and not just name calling, Ron Paul has an article here

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul479.html

today. 

You can call him or me all the names you want.  He was one of the very few who were right about this, and have been predicting it for years.  Why not pay attention to the guys who were right, as opposed to letting the guys who created the mess “fix” it?

Comment #25: Libertarian  on  09/25  at  01:29 PM

AWOOGA!

AWOOGA!

ATTENTION NORTH AMERICAN UNION ARMED FORCES!

AWOOGA!

AWOOGA!

PAULTARD ALERT! PAULTARD ALERT!

SET READINESS TO CONDITION: GOLD. REPEAT: THIS IS NOT A DRILL. CONDITION: GOLD.

Comment #26: Ben D.  on  09/25  at  01:30 PM

Face it.  Ron Paul is fun.  He’s like having a hospital doctor who is a dozen times better at diagnosis than anybody else on staff—a third of the time—but when asked about treatment, reaches into his pocket and says “well, I’ve got this hand grenade .....”.

Comment #27: seeker6079  on  09/25  at  01:33 PM

Did you ever read his newsletters, Libertarian?

I hear that one on “Racial Terrorism” was great! (sarcasm)

Comment #28: Ben D.  on  09/25  at  01:33 PM

No.

But I’ve read many of his columns which have been consistently right about all of this.

Name calling is what happens when there is no substance.  Face it, the funny little guy was right, and all the people making fun of him (yes you) were/are wrong.

Go ahead laugh. 

All the way to the poorhouse.

Comment #29: Libertarian  on  09/25  at  01:38 PM

Libby:

He was one of the very few who were right about this, and have been predicting it for years. Why not pay attention to the guys who were right, as opposed to letting the guys who created the mess “fix” it?

Yes, why don’t we? Why don’t we let the guy who believes in the economic equivalent of solving the problem of foul balls by removing the backstop deal with the startling lack of backstops at baseball fields nationwide?

Handing the libertarians the keys to the banking crisis is like handing the Christian fascists the keys to the gay rights movement.

Comment #30: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  09/25  at  01:40 PM

Do I have a treat for you then, “Libertarian”. Check out this link:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

Here are some real gems from his newsletter (The Ron Paul Survival Report):

“A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”

The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind words for David Duke.

This newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

It gets better:

An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” would be better alternatives—and says, “Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”

Go read the whole thing. The guy is a racist, senile coot.

Comment #31: Ben D.  on  09/25  at  01:40 PM

And abolishing the Fed and going back to the gold standard would be economic suicide. If we still lived in a country where half the population lived on farms it might be possible since you could always grow your own food when the inevitable bust/panic follows the boom, but today? No.

Comment #32: Ben D.  on  09/25  at  01:42 PM

Maybe Ron Paul should concentrate his attention on ending abortion ... or THE abortion that is his campaign.

Any Libertarian who thinks the state has a vested interest in the contents of my womb is a hypocrite.

Comment #33: Ms Kate  on  09/25  at  01:49 PM

Libertarian -

Ron Paul lost all credibility when he decided to endorse radical theocrat, Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin instead of sticking by the Libertarian Party and using the movement he’s got behind him to build a real movement for the Libertarian Party.

Much like Ralph Nader lost all credibility when he abandoned the Greens after the 2000 election, Ron Paul has revealed himself to be an empty suit more concerned about his own feelings and personal aggrandizement than he is about any of the stuff he espouses.  Screw him - he’s a demogogue who was right about the Iraq war but by throwing his hat in the ring with radical theocrats he’s shown himself to be no friend of liberty at all.

Seriously - go read the Constitution Party platform.  They don’t believe in protecting people’s rights from the tyranny of the state, they don’t believe in separation of Church and State, they believe that the State has the power to mandate what you do with your own bodies - whether we’re talking gay rights politics or abortion politics.  They believe that all education should be religious based.  And this is the Party that Ron Paul has thrown his support to.  Pardon my French but Fuck Ron Paul.  He’s as much a tyrant as anyone he’s spoken out against.

Comment #34: NonyNony  on  09/25  at  01:49 PM

Exactly Ben - how quickly many forget about inflation leading to speculation in the metals markets leading to a small number of people having the treasury by the balls.

Comment #35: Ms Kate  on  09/25  at  01:50 PM

Yeah, and the crap about how a central bank is unconstitutional is B.S. Alexander Hamilton set up the predecessor to the Fed (the Bank of the United States) signed into law by Washington. So at least two people who, you know, helped right the damn Constitution thought it to be within Constitutional limits (under regulating interstate commerce).

Comment #36: Ben D.  on  09/25  at  01:51 PM

McCain may have laid a big bet but it will not be on Obama. As a gambling man I would take odds of three to one against the next President of the USA being a woman whose surname begings with “P”

But if you asked me to bet at the same odds on it being Palin I’d laugh despite what I say in the Boggart Blog post linked today. Amazingly some people are treating that post as a serious prediction.

Comment #37: Ian Thorpe  on  09/25  at  01:52 PM

How does this not end badly for him?  There has to be some political logic to all this.  Does anyone have the first clue what it is?

Actually, I think it might end badly for McCain. Postponing the debate looks like a cop-out to many. But we’ll see.

Comment #38: atheist  on  09/25  at  02:01 PM

He had to pull some kind of stunt because he’s getting buried in the polls. He’s on the verge of losing. Nevermind the fact Obama has wide leads in MI and PA now along with a narrow lead in VA and CO, he’s on the verge of overtaking McCain in places like North Carolina, Indiana, and even West Virginia!

Comment #39: Ben D.  on  09/25  at  02:03 PM

To be clear, I’m not a Paulite. Ayn Rand style libertarianism scares the shit out of me.

However, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t we only go off the gold standard in 1971? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

The preceding 1960s were not the era of agricultural self-sufficiency. In fact, the circumstances were not wholly different from our current ones. We put a band-aid on it, then put on many more over the years, and now the thing’s gone gangrenous.

We have been in a faith-based currency system for over 30 years. I don’t necessarily think discussion of something approaching the gold standard should be disregarded out of hand.

But then, I’m not a financial supergenius like our friend Hank Paulson…

Comment #40: the matthew show  on  09/25  at  02:09 PM

TMS—

That wasn’t really the kind of gold standard Paul talks about. We went off of that one much earlier (FDR took us off), and the Fed was established even before that, in 1914.

Comment #41: Ben D.  on  09/25  at  02:11 PM

It’s also worth noting EVERY currency is “faith based”, including the much stronger Euro. It’s not really faith based, but tied to the strength of a nations economy and the soundness (or lack thereof) of their fiscal policies.

Comment #42: Ben D.  on  09/25  at  02:16 PM

Republican strategist Rich Galen, who advised Fred Thompson in the primaries, said, “It’s a brilliant stroke by McCain. You will have an empty chair debate in Oxford without McCain. And an empty chair at the White House economic negotiations without Obama.”

You know, Rich, we do have these things now called “telephones” that mean you can talk to someone from a long distance away.  You don’t actually have to be there in person or anything!

Comment #43: Mnemosyne  on  09/25  at  02:20 PM

It’s a classic Rovian tactic of trying to turn your opponent’s strength into weakness, and your weakness into strength. But to work, it requires people to stop laughing.

Comment #44: paul  on  09/25  at  02:31 PM

Gold standard or no, the current problem’s genesis was that crap (No Income/No Job or “ninja” home loans and such) was spun into gold-rated financial instruments and that was where things went to shit.  The whole going into deeply into debt thing didn’t help, nor did the buy cheaper labor movement, but things didn’t really hit the fan until crappy Triple-A-rated financial instruments started to be used as collateral to buy more and more crappy Triple-A-rated financial instruments and someone had the audacity to try to cash in.

If McCain has some magic plan to unravel this mess, he’d be the first one.  And it would be a wonderful thing if it could work.  Instead, he’s decided to make a show of getting serious, following an exclusive with Katie Couric and a phone call to Letterman (the talk show host, not the Electric Company superhero who could actually make a “dent” into our “debt”.)  If, and I mean “on the off chance that Mr. McMaverick actually understands the current crisis” by which I mean “no,” he has some solution that isn’t a farce composed of capital gains tax cuts, huge bailouts to corporations, regulations to be named later, and some sort of promise to help those whose homes are worth less than the payments, then I’ll be amazed enough to overlook the fact that as far as confronting the media and his opponents go, he’s a freaking coward.  Not enough to vote for him, but I might stop calling him a coward.

Comment #45: jon  on  09/25  at  02:32 PM

Libertarian, Paul has said all sorts of things to all sorts of people. He’s not accountable, and can say whatever he likes. Some of them are bound to be right to some degree.  He has no consistent platform that I’ve seen. Again, why aren’t his positions stated plainly on his website?

Comment #46: me  on  09/25  at  02:53 PM

inflation leading to speculation in the metals markets

To speak of which, what happened to the silver market? I needed to buy some silver metal recently and there is NONE to be had, at least by little people. The price per ounce is purely fictional—there is no supply, except grossly overpriced commemoratives and the like. No supply, and yet the price is not moving up very much. Something stinks here.

Comment #47: sunsin  on  09/25  at  02:53 PM

The point of this whole thing (or one point, at least) was to say that if there’s no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate.

Comment #48: annejumps  on  09/25  at  03:05 PM

Obama should debate Palin’s pastor.

Comment #49: Sirkowski  on  09/25  at  03:27 PM

I have nothing constructive to add, but I just want to thanks whoever put together the accompanying graphic—I’ve been having one of those days, and just let loose a loud, unexpected laugh of delight.

(If it’s old, what can I say?  I’m a slow foreigner.)

Comment #50: Ranylt  on  09/25  at  03:34 PM

The point of this whole thing (or one point, at least) was to say that if there’s no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate.

What’s the matter? Palin not ready for prime-time yet?

Comment #51: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  09/25  at  03:38 PM

Libertarian, the reason Paul said we were heading for a crisis was that government was too involved in the economy. Paul was wrong—this crisis came from too little government involvement (ie, because of deregulation).
If I say we’re going to have an economic crisis next year in the biotech sector because they’re going to create tiny pink elephants that are going to make much of the research useless and then there is a crisis in biotech, that won’t make me right (unless tiny pink elephants do mess up research).

Comment #52: JohnL  on  09/25  at  04:23 PM

And abolishing the Fed and going back to the gold standard would be economic suicide. If we still lived in a country where half the population lived on farms it might be possible since you could always grow your own food when the inevitable bust/panic follows the boom

And we’re talking about a situation where virtually everyone is a debtor, even if their debts are more legitimate (than credit cards) mortgages or business loans.  The gold standard leads to severe depreciation which is very bad for anyone who carries any debt.  The modern economy would pretty much collapse, but bankers and credit card companies would be very, very happy, at least in the short term.

Comment #53: keshmeshi  on  09/25  at  04:29 PM

I wasn’t looking to make this about RP or me.  I do suggest that the people who are putting together this bailout are the same group, or their clones, who got us into this position.  Paul has been RIGHT about this all along.  For those of you hung up over 20 year old newsletters, fine, call people names, make ad hom. attacks, anything to distract from the fact that he’s been predicting this for years, and actually can talk about the economy with knowledge and understanding, unlike either of the guys running for Pres. 

Although I won’t convince anyone here, deregulation was not the problem.  Anyone who thinks that the banking industry, or lenders, are suffering from lack of reg’s is just ignorant.  Banks and lenders are buried in reg’s and the regulators that come with them.  The Fed’s are already totally involved and their policies and restrictions have vast influences on what bankers and lenders do and don’t do.  The idea that this was a “free maket” failure is laughable.  There is no free market in banking or mortgage lending, it all takes place within a vast complex of rules and regs.

Comment #54: Libertarian  on  09/25  at  05:03 PM

There is no free market in banking or mortgage lending, it all takes place within a vast complex of rules and regs.

Uh, yeah, because without rules and regulations, no banking would get done.  If our banking system consisted of small local Mom’n'Pop savings and loans, you could maybe—maybe—cut back on the regs.  When you’re dealing with multistate giants like Bank of America, rules and regulations are the only thing preventing them from ass-raping American consumers at will, because no individual has enough money to sue them to stop them from doing it.

You can’t even play a game of kickball without rules—what makes you think eliminating rules from business would work out swell?

Comment #55: Mnemosyne  on  09/25  at  05:49 PM

Although I won’t convince anyone here, deregulation was not the problem.

Want to know the reason why you won’t convince anyone here? Because you’re wrong.

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 specifically banned regulation on credit default swaps. Credit default swaps are arguably the biggest reason we’ve reached this point. They’ve been sold, and sold, and sold, and sold so many times that in many instances the amount of CDS’ on an underlying debt are greater than the underlying debt itself. This leads to a situation we find ourselves in, when people start trying to collect on the CDS’ and the company that sold it doesn’t have the funds available to pay it off. And just in case you missed the first sentence of this paragraph, there are no – NO – governmental regulations on this particular derivative. As a result, companies have become grossly over-leveraged, with no way to pay off existing obligations.

Comment #56: Dweeze  on  09/25  at  05:59 PM

Don’t bother, Dweeze. From reading libby’s comments, it appears that he believes that “the banking industry is regulated” and “every single thing that the banking industry does is regulated” are precisely equivalent statements.

Comment #57: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  09/25  at  06:03 PM

“There is no free market in banking or mortgage lending, it all takes place within a vast complex of rules and regs.”

Several years ago I got a wild hair and decided to get a pilots license.  You only live once, as I’ve been told.  I had to study thick books of FAA regulations.  I could flip open the book to nearly any page and find a regulation that was a direct result of someone doing something stupid and getting people injured or killed.  I’d wager the same thing happens in the financial market.  I like rules.  People know what’s expected of them when there are rules.  No rules in the financial market = no trust.  No trust means they don’t get to invest my money. And money is, after all, what it’s all about. I wouldn’t want to be a burden to you when my 403B sucks ass after 40 years and all I’ve got is a used van down by the river and the cash I’ve stuffed in my mattress.  You can keep the anarchic utopia…I want to be sure, by the force of law, that people aren’t being stupid.

Comment #58: Tim  on  09/25  at  06:10 PM

Face it.  Ron Paul is fun.  He’s like having a hospital doctor who is a dozen times better at diagnosis than anybody else on staff—a third of the time—but when asked about treatment, reaches into his pocket and says “well, I’ve got this hand grenade .....”.

So you’re saying Ron Paul is actually House?

Comment #59: Zifnab25  on  09/25  at  06:40 PM

Yeah, if FAA regulations are written in blood, banking regulations are written in red ink.  They only made them because “self-regulation” was a horrible failure.

Comment #60: Antigone  on  09/25  at  07:04 PM

Libertarian, people don’t call you names because they can’t grapple with your arguments.  It really is, across-the-board, because you don’t deserve a real response.  And because you are an arrogant asshole whose estimates of his intelligence are the inverse of reality, you are a fun target to release some tension.

Comment #61: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/25  at  08:14 PM

Libertarian has a point that the orchestrators of the bailout may not have the best intentions and are involved in creating the mess. Consider that Paulson et al opposed limitations on departing officers´ compensation (but wouldn´t a libertarian have to oppose, too, on the grounds that compensation regardless of performance was in a contract freely bargained for?). Consider that the conservative state has pushed an oppressive, exclusive vision of family in surburbia on all of us for years, making a mortgage seem essential esp. for those who felt as a result that home ownership was essential to being part of culture and community, though they could not afford it. And, with a hat tip to Bill Maher´s identical argument on Real Time, conservatives now want to socialize losses while they have been championing the free market for gains and so defending large CEO compensations. So, taxpayer money going should not prop up those who failed in the free market and hoarded gains for themselves citing free-market principles; taxpayer money ought not to subsidize an anti-gay, anti-woman cultural dream of suburban, patriarchal families.

Comment #62: Luke  on  09/25  at  08:34 PM

“Libertarian has a point that the orchestrators of the bailout may not have the best intentions and are involved in creating the mess.”

What Libertarian said is certainly not unique.  I’ve been hearing about this since Paulson first shit in the punchbowl…

“So, taxpayer money going should not prop up those who failed in the free market and hoarded gains for themselves citing free-market principles; taxpayer money ought not to subsidize an anti-gay, anti-woman cultural dream of suburban, patriarchal families.”

Luke, are you actually saying something reasonable?...

Comment #63: MikeEss  on  09/25  at  09:12 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.