The White Sox are my hometown team. Yeah, I know that they're from Chicago. And that I'm from Portland. We just don't have a team though. So I had to look elsewhere. I didn't really look far. After all, my father had me watching the Chi-Sox be bounced from the first round of the playoffs for years... that is when they weren't finishing in the basement of the AL central.
"Come talk to me on July 4th" my grandfather said when he heard that the 'Sox were leading the division in April. More often than not they'd be well behind by September. Well this year they were leading on the Fourth this year and tonight they even managed not to choke a good thing away by beating the Twins 1-0. We're going to the playoffs. My Chi-Sox almost blew it. Almost went home with all the promise in the world and a wasted 162 games. They're still likely to lose in the playoffs, heck 7 of 8 teams do. But, for tonight I'm excited to see a team I root for steal victory from the jaws of defeat.
We're in for a recession. Not like the one in 2001-2 or even the one in 1991-2. We're in for a big one. It's Wall Street's fault, it's congress's fault, it's the President's fault and everyone else to boot. It's not something we had to have, but we failed, and we've got it. Still, I'm hopeful that, like the 'Sox, those who don't give up are rewarded. I root for White Sox like I do for America: it's my hometown team. For America, it's likely that the infamous "well there's always next year" applies more than anything else. Still, the sun will probably rise in the east and set in the west tomorrow and I'm reassured that there will be next year. Tonight, my White Sox rose to the challenge of a challenging time... I sure hope my other home team will do the same.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
An' then there was nothing
Today, politics reigned supreme. Today, the need to insult, denigrate and win elections triumphed over the need to govern well. Today, the Dow was down another 778 points causing the loss of roughly 1.2 trillion of dollars of American wealth. It was wealth that was in 401k retirement packages and our banks. It was wealth that allowed us to buy houses and cars. It was wealth that allowed for credit cards and Christmas presents. It was the wealth that funded business loans and created jobs. It was wealth. Now, It's gone.
We had to act quickly. We didn't. All of the protests that this bill wasn't perfect are surely correct... and completely irrelevant. We've now let this go on long enough that by the time we might have a perfect rescue there will be nothing left of the economy to revive. In this case even a bad plan was better than none at all. Everyone who voted against it for political and ideological reasons should be ashamed of themselves.
There's plenty of blame for both parties.
The Democrats did not take this crisis seriously and spent their time packing a simple 3 page (thank you Ariel) bailout plan with so much random and unneeded drivel that the final bill was over 300 pages long. Then Speaker Pelosi gave a speech this morning saying that the crisis was entirely the fault of the Republican party, George Bush and big corporations. This not only alienated the Republicans who were set to vote for the bill... but emboldened Democrats to vote against it for the reasons she laid out! It was a petty attempt to score political points at exactly the wrong moment. Can we safely say now that Pelosi is in the running for the singularly worst congressional leader this country has ever had? She's a wreck!
The Republicans suffered from a lack of backbone and a fit of pique. Yeah, Pelosi's speech was gallingly offensive. But, Republicans should have voted for the bill anyway. It was irresponsible to let that legislation fail. It was immature to stick it to Pelosi with a no vote just because she gave a petulant speech. That little protest's cost was remarkably too expensive. The other Republicans who failed to act cited a constituency uprising. People were shell shocked by the 700 billion number. It's a bunch of money! Never mind that most of it would likely be repaid. Never mind that doing nothing would cost more. Never mind that the financial sector of the economy underpins everything and its failure will hurt every person on the face of the earth. The Mob responded emotionally and called their congress(wo)man to make sure that they didn't have to pay. This response is short sighted and down right ignorant. We have a representative system to make these far-sighted policies precisely because the Mob cannot be trusted. As it happened many congresspeople failed to lead when leadership was needed most andthe Mob forced itself and everybody else to pay much more than a measly 700 billion to cover their lack of courage. Those Republicans and Democrats who calculated that they wouldn't be elected if they voted for this bill are profiles in cowardice. They knew better and selfishly shuffled possible economic ruin onto everyone else so they might come back in the winter and continue their failed political careers.
At this point the damage is done. The only package that would make a difference now would cost far more than 700 billion dollars. There's no reason to bail out a sunken ship. I'm now of the opinion that the market really is now the best corrector of this mess. It was a market failure, we had a chance to mitigate its effects and our leaders failed us. I'm convinced that the time has past and at this point government action will do more harm than good. Our leaders from both parties fiddled while wall street burned... I think I'd rather not suffer the insult of them watering the ashes. It's time for us to take our lumps and rebuild again.
1.2 trillion dollars out of everyone's pocket today. I wonder what will tomorrows toll be?
We had to act quickly. We didn't. All of the protests that this bill wasn't perfect are surely correct... and completely irrelevant. We've now let this go on long enough that by the time we might have a perfect rescue there will be nothing left of the economy to revive. In this case even a bad plan was better than none at all. Everyone who voted against it for political and ideological reasons should be ashamed of themselves.
There's plenty of blame for both parties.
The Democrats did not take this crisis seriously and spent their time packing a simple 3 page (thank you Ariel) bailout plan with so much random and unneeded drivel that the final bill was over 300 pages long. Then Speaker Pelosi gave a speech this morning saying that the crisis was entirely the fault of the Republican party, George Bush and big corporations. This not only alienated the Republicans who were set to vote for the bill... but emboldened Democrats to vote against it for the reasons she laid out! It was a petty attempt to score political points at exactly the wrong moment. Can we safely say now that Pelosi is in the running for the singularly worst congressional leader this country has ever had? She's a wreck!
The Republicans suffered from a lack of backbone and a fit of pique. Yeah, Pelosi's speech was gallingly offensive. But, Republicans should have voted for the bill anyway. It was irresponsible to let that legislation fail. It was immature to stick it to Pelosi with a no vote just because she gave a petulant speech. That little protest's cost was remarkably too expensive. The other Republicans who failed to act cited a constituency uprising. People were shell shocked by the 700 billion number. It's a bunch of money! Never mind that most of it would likely be repaid. Never mind that doing nothing would cost more. Never mind that the financial sector of the economy underpins everything and its failure will hurt every person on the face of the earth. The Mob responded emotionally and called their congress(wo)man to make sure that they didn't have to pay. This response is short sighted and down right ignorant. We have a representative system to make these far-sighted policies precisely because the Mob cannot be trusted. As it happened many congresspeople failed to lead when leadership was needed most andthe Mob forced itself and everybody else to pay much more than a measly 700 billion to cover their lack of courage. Those Republicans and Democrats who calculated that they wouldn't be elected if they voted for this bill are profiles in cowardice. They knew better and selfishly shuffled possible economic ruin onto everyone else so they might come back in the winter and continue their failed political careers.
At this point the damage is done. The only package that would make a difference now would cost far more than 700 billion dollars. There's no reason to bail out a sunken ship. I'm now of the opinion that the market really is now the best corrector of this mess. It was a market failure, we had a chance to mitigate its effects and our leaders failed us. I'm convinced that the time has past and at this point government action will do more harm than good. Our leaders from both parties fiddled while wall street burned... I think I'd rather not suffer the insult of them watering the ashes. It's time for us to take our lumps and rebuild again.
1.2 trillion dollars out of everyone's pocket today. I wonder what will tomorrows toll be?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Debate links
The AP reviews the debate - It's got a "by line" so I don't assume that this is straight news. Though having read it it's pretty close to fair.
OXFORD, Mississippi (CNN) -- A national poll of people who watched the first presidential debate suggests that Barack Obama came out on top, but there was overwhelming agreement that both Obama and John McCain would be able to handle the job of president if elected.
Suzanne Garment from Forbes says we all won
tis the morning after the first presidential debate. Tens of millions of people are delivering themselves of opinions about which senator won, and tens of thousands of them are actually getting paid for it. The instant opinions are almost wholly filtered through the lens of who the opiner wants to win the election. However, it is clear that a big winner has been us, the public discourse, the country. Yes, the foregoing sounds incredibly sappy; but it is probably the most important judgment that can be made about any political contest.
Slate says that the tie goes to Obama - This is becoming the "conventional wisdom" in the media.
We've learned recently that John McCain likes chaos. First there was his surprise pick of Sarah Palin, then there was his hold-onto-your-hats rush back to Washington this week. The first presidential debate could have used a little of that homegrown mayhem. It was a very sober and even exchange with nary a hint of serendipity.
Joe Kline for Time - You'll see this analysis repeated by partisans who favor Obama all week.
Toward the very end of tonight's debate—which was quite a good one, I believe—John McCain laid out his rationale in this election in just a few words: Senator Obama, he said, lacks the "knowledge and experience to be President." The presidency will turn on whether the American people agree with McCain on that—but on this night, Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy ... and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces.
National Review - You'll see this repeated by Republicans....
Oxford, Mississippi — A few minutes after the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama ended here on the campus of the University of Mississippi, I asked close McCain adviser Charlie Black whether Obama had performed as McCain’s debate team had anticipated.
“No, no,” Black said emphatically. “I never expected Sen. Obama to spend the entire debate on the defensive, and he did. He did.”
Maybe there was a tad of exaggeration in Black’s verdict, but there was some truth in it, too. Obama was smooth, unflappable, and just a little off balance for much of the evening. Worse for him, he seemed inexplicably eager to concede that McCain was right on issue after issue. A candidate determined to appear congenial might do that once, or even twice, but Obama did it eight times.
There are many many more good editorials out there. I haven't seen too many that are polemic either. So go check it out.
OXFORD, Miss. (AP) - In a faceoff that returned again and again to judgment, John McCain portrayed himself as a battle-tested elder running against a naive rookie, while Barack Obama suggested the Republican is a hothead who made the wrong choices on the Iraq war, corporate taxes and more.
Now they take the themes from an intense first debate back to the campaign trail, looking for some edge in a tight presidential race. With 38 days left, McCain is headed for Washington and the dispute over a Wall Street bailout, while Obama plans to visit Republican-leaning states where the Democrat thinks he can make inroads.
CNN Story - Interesting poll information. Not sure it means anything for sure because of their methodology --still interesting.OXFORD, Mississippi (CNN) -- A national poll of people who watched the first presidential debate suggests that Barack Obama came out on top, but there was overwhelming agreement that both Obama and John McCain would be able to handle the job of president if elected.
Suzanne Garment from Forbes says we all won
tis the morning after the first presidential debate. Tens of millions of people are delivering themselves of opinions about which senator won, and tens of thousands of them are actually getting paid for it. The instant opinions are almost wholly filtered through the lens of who the opiner wants to win the election. However, it is clear that a big winner has been us, the public discourse, the country. Yes, the foregoing sounds incredibly sappy; but it is probably the most important judgment that can be made about any political contest.
Slate says that the tie goes to Obama - This is becoming the "conventional wisdom" in the media.
We've learned recently that John McCain likes chaos. First there was his surprise pick of Sarah Palin, then there was his hold-onto-your-hats rush back to Washington this week. The first presidential debate could have used a little of that homegrown mayhem. It was a very sober and even exchange with nary a hint of serendipity.
Joe Kline for Time - You'll see this analysis repeated by partisans who favor Obama all week.
Toward the very end of tonight's debate—which was quite a good one, I believe—John McCain laid out his rationale in this election in just a few words: Senator Obama, he said, lacks the "knowledge and experience to be President." The presidency will turn on whether the American people agree with McCain on that—but on this night, Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy ... and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces.
National Review - You'll see this repeated by Republicans....
Oxford, Mississippi — A few minutes after the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama ended here on the campus of the University of Mississippi, I asked close McCain adviser Charlie Black whether Obama had performed as McCain’s debate team had anticipated.
“No, no,” Black said emphatically. “I never expected Sen. Obama to spend the entire debate on the defensive, and he did. He did.”
Maybe there was a tad of exaggeration in Black’s verdict, but there was some truth in it, too. Obama was smooth, unflappable, and just a little off balance for much of the evening. Worse for him, he seemed inexplicably eager to concede that McCain was right on issue after issue. A candidate determined to appear congenial might do that once, or even twice, but Obama did it eight times.
There are many many more good editorials out there. I haven't seen too many that are polemic either. So go check it out.
Debate Review
My first impression was that McCain won the debate narrowly. Although, upon seeing the replay I'm changing my opinion. I think the whole thing slightly favored Obama. Minute by minute I think McCain scored more points but there's a value that needs to be added. Because this debate was split between foreign policy and the financial crisis these need to be graded separately.
On the Foreign policy section McCain won narrowly. He repeatedly hit the point that Obama "doesn't get it" which is the common and effective critique of Barack. When the debate degenerated into a "he said he said" sort of thing McCain was at advantage because he simply is more experienced and has more credibility. Obama did okay and he was able to hit the Iraq war point repeatedly. McCain never did parry the "you supported the war and you were wrong" accusation made by Obama. I kept waiting for McCain to say "but this isn't 2003... it's 2008 and this debate is about what to do in Iraq now." Obama has some reasonable responses to that point too, but the successful rejoinder would have greatly helped McCain by muddying the issue. So Obama held his own but McCain won this part.
On the financial crisis Obama won narrowly. McCain was not able to take credit for bringing the house republicans into the fold because they refused to agree to a deal before the debate. As such Obama was able to imply that McCain was not demonstrating leadership by virtue of being unsuccessful. The fact that this argument doesn't strictly make sense doesn't matter... it's about results. As far as the plan itself Obama won because he never explicitly endorsed it as a good thing. The American people are against any sort of bail out by a significant margin! Yes, this is stupid, yes I thank whatever Deity(s) there might possibly be that we have a representative rather than direct democratic system, but no the bail out is not popular. By laying low the bail out in general becomes McCain's baby politically and not Obama's. Irresponsible as it might be to not support the bail out it will help get votes among the very people where Obama is weak. Populist minded blue collar, white males. McCain did fine on this section, he was able to score points and make his case but he didn't win.
So why did Obama win the debate in total narrowly when they discussed foreign policy for so much longer than the financial crisis? It's because people don't care about foreign policy! Now that Iraq is relatively stable and Afghanistan is still a very low intensity conflict the folks have lost interest in the world... they hate us anyway right? The economy is by far the most important issue this election cycle and Iraq isn't even #2. This is a bit of a testament to the success of McCain's surge idea but it still hurts his chances to win in the fall.
Because Obama narrowly won the part of the debate that focused on the economy he won the debate as a whole despite losing narrowly on foreign policy.
On the Foreign policy section McCain won narrowly. He repeatedly hit the point that Obama "doesn't get it" which is the common and effective critique of Barack. When the debate degenerated into a "he said he said" sort of thing McCain was at advantage because he simply is more experienced and has more credibility. Obama did okay and he was able to hit the Iraq war point repeatedly. McCain never did parry the "you supported the war and you were wrong" accusation made by Obama. I kept waiting for McCain to say "but this isn't 2003... it's 2008 and this debate is about what to do in Iraq now." Obama has some reasonable responses to that point too, but the successful rejoinder would have greatly helped McCain by muddying the issue. So Obama held his own but McCain won this part.
On the financial crisis Obama won narrowly. McCain was not able to take credit for bringing the house republicans into the fold because they refused to agree to a deal before the debate. As such Obama was able to imply that McCain was not demonstrating leadership by virtue of being unsuccessful. The fact that this argument doesn't strictly make sense doesn't matter... it's about results. As far as the plan itself Obama won because he never explicitly endorsed it as a good thing. The American people are against any sort of bail out by a significant margin! Yes, this is stupid, yes I thank whatever Deity(s) there might possibly be that we have a representative rather than direct democratic system, but no the bail out is not popular. By laying low the bail out in general becomes McCain's baby politically and not Obama's. Irresponsible as it might be to not support the bail out it will help get votes among the very people where Obama is weak. Populist minded blue collar, white males. McCain did fine on this section, he was able to score points and make his case but he didn't win.
So why did Obama win the debate in total narrowly when they discussed foreign policy for so much longer than the financial crisis? It's because people don't care about foreign policy! Now that Iraq is relatively stable and Afghanistan is still a very low intensity conflict the folks have lost interest in the world... they hate us anyway right? The economy is by far the most important issue this election cycle and Iraq isn't even #2. This is a bit of a testament to the success of McCain's surge idea but it still hurts his chances to win in the fall.
Because Obama narrowly won the part of the debate that focused on the economy he won the debate as a whole despite losing narrowly on foreign policy.
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Debate
My first gut reaction was that this debate was very close. I'll write up my opinion tomorrow once I have had a chance to think about it a bit. But I wanted to know: what do you think?
Who won and why?
Did either guy have a moment that will end up being replayed over and over on the news?
Who won and why?
Did either guy have a moment that will end up being replayed over and over on the news?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
