You run for Congress, you accept a Cabinet post, you take a senior position in the federal bureaucracy and you never actually know what you're going to get. Most of the time it will be run of the mill politics and policy. Serious stuff at times, but not earth shattering. Sometimes, however, the ground shakes.
The Founding Fathers faced it in stitching together our government on the heels of the Revolution and the disaster that was the Articles of Confederation. Statesman like Henry Clay held the country together in the early 19th Century as the political impact of slavery threatened to tear the nation asunder.
Abraham Lincoln met it head on, holding the Union together by at times simply the sheer force of his will. FDR was the public face of American stoicism to survive the unexpected and sustained domestic hell of the Great Depression. And we gritted our way through World War II, a titanic, exhausting struggle almost unfathomable to us a only a rough seventy years later. The tension of the Cold War was a tea party by comparison.
The point being that the course of human history means sometimes things go south - and fast. The people sitting in government positions are who they are, and whatever their strengths and weaknesses, it's time to step up and do everything in their power to cope with a mortifying crisis.
That's what faces Members of Congress and key members of the federal government at this time. The mess has many causes, as rrecounted succinctly by Rich Lowry. Blame is to be shared by many.
In the long-term, one task of government will be to assess where it was a positive and negative actor in all this. As such, the distortion of the housing market and related spread of now troublesome mortgage-backed securities under Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must be seriously revisited. An exceptionally good case (or two!) can be made that as far as federal government culpability goes, the GSE's rank right up there.
For now, just as Lincoln had to be creative at certain junctures to maintain the Union, crises like these require thinking outside the ideological box. Robert Samuelson is right: this is all about confidence right now. If Congress doesn't act in substantive and reasonable fashion - regardless of whether Treasury Secretary Paulson's proposal is the ultimate vehicle - to address fundamental confidence in financial system then we've got problems more serious than we can probably articulate.
For all the ridiculous Democratic talk in recent months of already living in a Great Depression-type mess, the stakes are now actually that serious. This isn't a good time for political grandstanding, this is an abyss. Act prudently and our financial system as we know it can recover. Fail to act with prudence, and the odds of total failure are alarmingly high.
Sure, there are doubters out there that things are truly that serious. Sadly, such talk comes from those, like many in Congress, who don't fundamentally grasp the magnitude of what just happened - since working knowledge of economics seems a lost art to even many college graduates in America - in the last couple weeks and how dangerously close we are to 1929 thanks to circumstances not a lot of people understand in full. We can seriously say this is the "The End of Wall Street" as we knew it (which is a must-read piece...follow that link).
More importantly, those on Capitol Hill left unimpressed - or transparently unable to comprehend the situation - are playing with fire. Paulson's actions last week were necessitate by the financial system arriving at the precipice of disaster: the near cessation of market liquidity.
For the lay person: the equivalent of what almost happened to our financial system was similar to what would happen if you drained all the oil out of the engine of your favorite sports car. Then try to gun it onto the freeway for a drive down the Interstate. The whole damn thing will freeze up, leaving you in one helluva pickle, and with one very grumpy (and one very unusable) vehicle. Now imagine that's the financial system through which all money in our economy flows.
Gulp.
Certainly there are valid critiques of the proposed solution currently on the table. Those criticisms come from the right and left and have many fair points. Yet, they would have more value if the situation weren't so dire and urgent. Note this from Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke yesterday:
"If financial conditions fail to improve for a protracted period, the implications for the broader economy could be quite adverse."
Given the obtuse and measured language that is standard issue with senior Fed officials, allow a me a translation: "if the federal government is unable to calm the markets and provide a measure of stability, we will have that Great Depression that our politicians keep talking about on our hands."
More bluntly: "quite adverse" = we're screwed.
That is not an environment for Congress to play its usual game of pandering, patty-cake, and press conferences. Lowry summarizes the problem:
But it seems to me people opposing it have to do two things: 1) Explain why they think a financial meltdown in which the credit markets freeze up either wouldn't be as bad as most everyone thinks, or explain why the resulting mini-depression would be a lesser evil than the Paulson plan (personally, I can't see it); 2) If they aren't willing to do 1), explain what their alternative plan is to stem the financial panic. If they aren't doing either of these two things, opponents of the plan are just blowing smoke.
There are reasons not to like the Paulson/Bernanke plan. And less than two months out from a Presidential election is just about the worst time possible to expect politicians to not play politics. But that's ultimately what this issue demands to some degree, and whatever form of a solution Congress chooses to endorse, inaction is not a viable option.
John McCain's unexpected move today adds an additional layer of intrigue to matters. A joint statement by he and Obama as well as a kumbaya meeting at the White House tomorrow are unparalleled at this juncture in a Presidential campaign. Perhaps McCain's move shows leadership and helps prompt a deal on government action to be reached quicker, with greater Republican support than that which seemed otherwise possible in recent days. Or maybe the gambit will be a total bust.
Either way, as Ed Morrissey explained well today, Congress played an essential role in causing this problem. Congress has to do its duty to help fix it. Saying "no" or simply offering up status quo proposals from preexisting economic agendas is not a viable solution to this crisis, regardless of the merits of such already-debated economic policy ideas (yes, that means many conservatives are barking up the wrong tree...just as many on the left are in error with the conditions they propose as well).
If Congress leaves town without doing something reasonable in a timely manner on this subject, then it be almost impossible to feel sorry for any Member who was for doing nothing. And history will be much less kind to those in federal government with the real power to craft a solution if they should fail.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 24, 2008 07:54 PM | Email ThisMcCain was Right on the Surge, damn right and took a huge chance that paid off as a right choice that neither Obama nor Bush agreed with.
McCain is right on drilling, and nuclear power. The massive Oil prices are a huge part of why we are in a financial crisis. The democrats had to fold these cards and allow drilling.
McCain was Right on Palin, a remarkable choice.
He has a sense of responsibility, and will not quit the US.
He's the right choice at this time.
Why? They do not see the big picture. They fight battles and never look or address the root cause. That is what I was reminded of when I heard McCain was suspending the campaign. He has been in the senate for nearly as long as Paul in congress. Paul has been trying to address the problems that has led to this crisis the entire time. McCain decides it is important after he sees the fire.
Even then I doubt he sees the importance, I think he just sees an excuse to get out of a debate that will make him appear like a fool and a big business/government apologist.
Posted by: Lysander on September 24, 2008 08:22 PMAppluading FDR shows your true colors. He was a horrible president that prolonged a depression.
Hmm... now that I put it that way... I think I understand why you support McCain!
Posted by: Lysander on September 24, 2008 08:25 PMTo think I thought the Clinton's were sociopath's. They've gotten nothing on this unctuous huckster.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 24, 2008 08:36 PMI would much rather see 'individual first'.
IF McCain were really putting 'country first' he would have maybe studied some economics back when he was first elected to the senate. It seems inexcusable to be a senator for 20+ years and still not have a grasp of it.
Suspending a campaign to act as if it is important is not a substitute for 20+ years of ignoring the growing problems.
Posted by: Lysander on September 24, 2008 08:42 PMGuess what the difference is between a free market democracy where everyone fends for themselves and a nanny socialist government system of central governent propped up failures.
Answer: The former comes out of a recession.
Posted by: Andy on September 24, 2008 08:45 PMYou're right, regardless of my utter disagreement with many of FDR's New Deal policies, I certainly was a moron to say we was a stoic leader in a time of national crisis...or allude to the fact he was in fact the President and a true leader during the cataclysm that was World War II.
How silly of me.
Tell us again, Lysander, how many Republicans have you ever voted for in your life?
Jackass.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 24, 2008 09:07 PMAlso take a guess which one McCain/Obama prefer!
Posted by: Lysander on September 24, 2008 09:07 PMGuess what happened when ideological zealots (like you) insisted on a tight money supply after the stock market crash of 1929 and then passed Smoot-Hawley to boot?
The Great Depression.
Frankly, I'm not really interested in seeing version 2.0, but thanks for asking.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 24, 2008 09:15 PMI am glad you recognize that was a stupid statement to make about FDR. A true hero would have done what he could to keep us out of war not everything possible to bring us into war like FDR.
If you are not interested in the Great Depression part II. Perhaps you should support ending the fed, returning to a gold standard, not bailing out private enterprises that made bad decisions and supporting candidates that do not feel the economy is something that can be ignored for 20 years while serving in congress.
Posted by: Lysander on September 24, 2008 10:20 PMOr you could recognize that my answer to you was sarcastic. Since you are a humorless soul you didn't.
More importantly, you've made a habitual habit of reading much more into what people write than what is actually said in words. I was lauding FDR's leadership capacity in time of crisis (the topic of the post), not his policies.
And, you could stop pretending to be a Republican and arguing accordingly when you don't actually support Republican candidates.
That is all. Good night.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 24, 2008 10:26 PMThere's no intrigue at all. Obama is an empty suit.
And McCain has just painted my Republican Party as being too afraid of an empty suit to be willing to debate him.
Today he's a coward, regardless of his accomplishments of the past.
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr on September 24, 2008 10:27 PMPot. Kettle. Colorblindness.
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr on September 24, 2008 10:29 PMI forgot to respond to the following...
"Tell us again, Lysander, how many Republicans have you ever voted for in your life?"
1. I have not told you before.
2. I will not tell you now.
3. This might surprise you but too most people and even to most republicans, the number of republicans you have voted for is not some badge of honor.
4. Being that I am a principled voter that will ONLY vote for a candidate if they can show they will be principled and always push towards a much smaller government...you probably do not want to draw attention to the number of republicans I have voted for. It only draws attention to the fact that the republican politicians have strayed far from their limited government roots since I have reached voting age.
As soon as the party can be bothered to nominate genuinely Republican candidates, and not pretenders like John Kerry McCain, or Dhimmi Abu Rossi, I'll support them. If not then not.
"Country First," right?
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr on September 24, 2008 10:32 PMActually I did. I guess I am not as good at the sarcasm since you obviously did not catch on.
More importantly, you've made a habitual habit of reading much more into what people write than what is actually said in words. I was lauding FDR's leadership capacity in time of crisis (the topic of the post), not his policies.
I guess I just have a hard time understanding why you would applaud a leader who used his leadership abilities for bad causes.
And, you could stop pretending to be a Republican and arguing accordingly when you don't actually support Republican candidates.
And where exactly did i pretend to be a republican to prompt the earlier comments in this thread? And what qualifies me to be a republican in your book?
Q: What's the difference between George Bush and Hugo Chavez?
A: Chavez nationalizes profitable companies.
Posted by: True Colors on September 24, 2008 11:13 PMThe same thing that qualified McCain to be chairman of the Senate Commerce committee when he's never worked for a commercial venture in his life -- seniority and a majority of which he was a member. It's called the American government -- since you're a member, you should learn about it someday, rather than reflexively blaming America first, in that modern-day Republican way.
That's OK, though... McCain was enough of a small-l libertarian that he didn't accomplish anything there (I'm sure that was his principled reason, and not a Reichert -like laziness and incompetence). Well... Aside from censoring Ultimate Fighting on the basis of a personal grudge. That was all for naught in the end, too, as anyone who's watched Spike will tell you.
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr on September 24, 2008 11:18 PMIs a $700 billion bailout "acting with prudence"?
What if they give $700 billion and it doesn't stop banks from failing?
Posted by: pbj on September 25, 2008 06:56 AMi've largely quit reading/commenting on this blog b/c it is little more than a regurgitation of 1/2 (the right wing half) of the talking points aired in other media.
but this post is really rich. in an effort to suggest some type of historical parallel, you simply omit the most relevant period of history: 2000-2006. you omit the impact of a rising federal debt and deficit, reduced income from taxation and unfunded wars. you omit the fact that republicans did NOTHING to prevent this current economic crisis when they had full control of the federal govt.
and, with mccain and palin unable and unwilling to face press questions about their plans/ideas, you are repeating the same mistakes of the recent past. you support a party/candidate who is unaccountable and too afraid to answer to the people they serve.
you lack intellectual honesty and have little credibility. i have a better understanding now why shark quit posting regularly to this echo chamber.
finally, your 'blogging' manners leave much to be desired. you should treat dissenting opinions with a bit more courtesy, otherwise you'll find yourself with comments from the same 10 people again and again.
mccain is down to pulling stunt after stunt in order to create a distraction. i don't believe it is going to work this time.
Your probably second only to Obama in ego size and arrogance. Why is it that when you libs threaten to leave, you instead keep coming back telling us of the dire consequences that would happen if you were to stop coming by?
Roger Rabbit and other other cartoon characters with foul mouths are waiting for you over at the equine anal blog. Have fun.
Posted by: pbj on September 25, 2008 07:21 AMAs I said, I listened to that babbling jackass and he assigned blame for this whole mess on everybody except the culprits who set this whole mess in motion and who perpetuated it and exacerbated it. I'm in no mood to listen to any more horescrap from anyone on this fleecing of the American taxpayer.
Unless and until ever damn one of the executives running the companies loose every dime they took out of the companies involved and there is a full scale congressional investigation into the politicains who initiated this mess count me out.
Or I write what I believe and you don't happen to like or agree with it (and thus label is as "right wing talking points"). Simple as that. I thought the left was supposed to embrace a free exchange of ideas?
As for blogging manners, if you were a regular reader during the Presidential primary season you would know I have good cause for taking the tone I have with Lysander. Based on his behavior online and offline (which is a whole separate tale) he deserves harsh criticism.
I tolerate dissenting views and critiques with a smile on my face. His behavior, however, is a rare exception and he deserves to be called on it on occasion.
Lastly, Stefan still owns and operates this blog...even if his business commitments no longer leaves him with the time to contribute. Like everyone else, I have posting privileges at his pleasure. So, I regret to inform you that you're wrong there as well.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 25, 2008 07:34 AMBoth of the candidates have no clue on economics; however, both are supposed leaders. One sticks his nose in there and gets something done (as much as I disliked the outcome of the immigration and campaign finance bills, they were butchered in the process), and the other ONE sits back and will bless what his party comes up with (or maybe I read the speech wrong).
It sounds like we need a bailout, but the longer this thing gets delayed, the longer it will be delayed.
Personally, I think the Democrats and liberals are willing to destroy the American economy to further their political agenda. I wish it weren't so and I wish I weren't so cynical but I have not seen anything to change my mind.
Posted by: swatter on September 25, 2008 07:35 AMThere must be no bailout, e.g., you and me paying mortgages of unqualified borrowers to greedy and corrupt lenders and investors who game the system. The FBI must continue to investigate for individual and RICO crimes. Call Dave Reichert in DC at 202-225-7761 and demand no bailout.
It's nice that Pakistan's President Zardari finds Sarah "gorgeous." Any woman with that level of appeal, e.g., Jennifer Dunn, has a significant disarming political advantage. McCain does need to let Sarah be Sarah; she will kick butt.
And just what is in the homosexual Barney Frank's mouth that causes him to speak in slurps? Is that a Democrat thing?
Posted by: The Pirate on September 25, 2008 07:56 AM
Now that time has gone by and the liberals and Democrats have hammered on McCain, it has come to light that Paulson asked/begged McCain to come back and save the country. Man, do they ever look foolish.
Posted by: swatter on September 25, 2008 08:12 AMReally, care to back that up. I've seen nothing of the sort. McCain is on record saying he's no fan of the Paulson plan.
Where's McCain been this whole time? He has not recorded a single vote in the Senate since March. Dereliction of duty?
The very politicians that sneer at Bush for this crisis are in fact the same creepoids that actually created it. Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and oh yes one Barack Obama who took massive contributions from Fannie and Freddie.
Who can forget back in 2004 when the Kerry campaign tried to say that the economy was the "worst since the great depression". What a bunch of lying jerks. If you keep supporting the Democrat Party after this and the crooked game they are playing with the ballots here in Washington you must have a screw loose.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 25, 2008 10:07 AMNow you expect to trust these guys with 700 Billion dollars of taxpayer money? Hypocrisy Party at it's finest.
LOL, never thought I'd see Bill Cruchton post such words
Bill continues:
The very politicians that sneer at Bush for this crisis are in fact the same creepoids that actually created it.
Hate to tell ya Bill Clinton left office EIGHT YEARS ago, the GOP was in control of the Congress and the White House for the 6 years after that. They could have done a lot of stuff, instead they were too busy funding bills to put Bridges to Nowhere up in AK and denying funding to fix levies in New Orleans. The "blame the Democrats" argument doesn't hold water when the facts show the GOP porked up the budget bills with money the US didn't have. Meanwhile banks were giving out loans to everyone under the sun and the GOP Govt. sat idly by saying the Free Market would correct the problem.
We see the warning signs way back in 2003, 2005.
My fav, is Charlie Kindleberger who practically wrote the book on bubbles predicts the current failure of Freddie and Fannie way back in 2002!!
Of course the GOP kept spending while The Fed, Freddie & Fannie all sat around and denied the warning signs of the current crisis. They all sat around and did nothing. Can't blame the Dem's for this one.
The above is one and Orbus has another link to another of the same. The comment is all over the news today.
Posted by: swatter on September 25, 2008 12:14 PMYou can read about it here: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/25/fox-news-blames-democrats-financial-crisis-bill-clinton-agrees
In a nutshell it was all about liberals whining about poor people and minorities being denied home ownership. Pandering for votes? What do you think? And look what happened.
Everything liberals touch turns into disaster. You run public schools and the drop-out rate soars and you need more and more tax money every single year. You run the colleges and then wring your hands about how college has become too expensive. And then, because you are a bunch of dishonest crybabies, you blame...Bush!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 25, 2008 12:44 PMHate to tell ya Bill Clinton left office EIGHT YEARS ago, the GOP was in control of the Congress and the White House for the 6 years after that.
Except for 2001, 2002, 2003 when the Senate was controlled by the Slavery Party, right Cato? Remember good ol' Harry Reid was Senate Majority Whip from 2001 to 2003, and he's not a Republican now is he?
Hard to get 6 years out of the 2001 to 2006 timeframe when the first 3 years you have Slavery Party running the Senate!
The reality is these last "terrible 8 years" you Slaver hacks rail against saw 5 years with either a Slavery Party Senate, Slavery Party House, or both. That you either did not know this fact or willfully overlook it means you truly are ignorant or partisan beyond belief. But probably both...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 25, 2008 01:08 PMFannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans. ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.'' Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market. In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's. ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'' Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped. Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings. Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites. Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent. In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent. Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings. In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups. The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
Barack Obama has said that he is following the situation closely, and will return to DC if he's needed, but he will attend tomorrow's scheduled debate. Indeed, he has said that if McCain doesn't show, he'll turn it into a town hall forum.Here's how it would play out in my little fantasy:
McCain announces on Friday afternoon that he's successfully gotten enough Republicans to back the bailout bill, and will attend the debate. He says that he understands that circumstances have changed and Senator Obama had spent the last day or so for an alternate forum, so he's willing to waive the pre-arranged topic of foreign policy and talk about domestic issues, especially the economy. And he'll even go along with the town-hall format, as Obama has said it would be in McCain's absence.
At that point, Obama is, quite frankly, screwed. McCain will have taken all his statements and declarations on the debate and accepted each and every one of them. And by doing so, McCain will be not only taking the high road, but seizing the high ground -- he will be able to talk at length at his efforts to try to save Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but being thwarted by the Democrats in the Senate -- the last time, while Obama was in the Senate. And by choosing the town-hall format, he will be playing to his strengths in debates, where Obama is notoriously lousy when speaking off the cuff -- especially of late.
Thus, allowing McCain to remind the voters that he CHALLENGED bHo to 10 town halls and after saying "anytime anywhere", bHo ran like the rat he is... er, he demured.
***
With his move this week McCain has ensured that the audiance for Friday nights debate will be much larger ... he obviously wants it to be ...He's going to be going up against Obama, on foreign policy, in the first and now even more highly anticipated debate ...
Well, John McCain has announced that he puts more weight in the job he currently holds, the job for which he is currently being paid to perform, and will suspend his campaign (even skipping the first scheduled debate, if necessary) while he attends to his senatorial duties.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 25, 2008 03:33 PMMeanwhile, Barack Obama will go to the debate, whether or not McCain shows up.
I'm not going to condemn Obama for his decision, though.
We all must play to our strengths. John McCain is running on his experience and leadership and willingness to reach across the aisle towards bipartisan solutions. As such, the best place for him right now is in Congress, working to get a plan passed.
Obama, on the other hand, is a consummate campaigner.
As a legislator, Obama is decidedly lackluster. If he, too, were to return to DC, I think we all know what would happen. Obama would make a big speech filled with generalities about how something must be done. He'd disappear when the real work was being achieved behind closed doors. He'd show up at the end and try to put his name on the compromise. And then, when it came to a vote, he'd vote "present."
Quite frankly, we don't need that right now. Let the guy stay out on the campaign trail, where he won't interfere with the folks doing real work.
As far as him doing the job to which he was elected, while I can give some credence to that argument, I find myself saying to the people of Illinois: "Look, you knew when you elected him in 2004 that he was going to just use the job as a stepping stone to the presidency. He knew he would maybe give you a year or two of attention, then start campaigning full-time. If you believed his statements to the contrary, then you were fools and should have known better."
So let Obama have the campaign trail to himself, have his debate to an empty chair. Let him show that he puts far more stock in getting the new job than actually performing the one he already has, the one he took an oath to perform. It's the least harmful thing he can do.
And that is probably the greatest service he will ever perform for his nation.
Reality:
McCain shows up late, takes all the credit for doing nothing.
I say send the unqualified Palin to debate in his place, watch Obama wipe the floor with the know-nothing from AK. Meanwhile McCain can hold a press conference where he hands out hot water bottles to dehydrated babies.
Here's how it would play out in my little fantasy
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 25, 2008 03:43 PMDoes your knee always jerk before you attempt to engage your brain? You might want to have a professional check that out.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 25, 2008 03:57 PMThanks, I'd rather not hear about your sick and twisted fantasy's. =P
Yes I absolutely agree... send Palin
Yeah, her foreign policy experience includes seeing Russia from her house and a few trade deals she wasn't even involved in. The lady is a joke, most certainly not qualified to take McCain's place. This way she reinforces to all of America and the World how irresponsible John McCain really is.
I wonder why she won't release her financial and medical records? She got something to hide? If Hillary can do it, so can Sarah.
What is Obama's burgeoning foreign policy experience? Meeting with what foreign leaders? Setting what international policy or treaties? Or does being a community organizer exempt him from this issue?
Oh, releasing financial and medical records - would be nice to see Obama's records. Or even his vaunted school transcripts...
How about LEADING rather than responding? Oh I know, that's not Obama's role... He has to follow. Yeah, that's REALLY presidential!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 25, 2008 05:10 PMum, obfusCATOr, let's see if i can clear this up for your foggy little brain (I'm not quote sure which would be the operative word, foggy or little).
Those words were a QUOTE from a fellow that wrote an article. Perhaps you can both learn to click the links AND read before your knee jerks...again.
Regarding Governor Palin, Dan aptly covered it ... just be sure you carefully read ALL the words, before your knee jerks out another poorly subject change... er, attempted rebuttal.
NOTE TO EDITORS: the STRIKE function would be great!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 25, 2008 05:31 PMI think you might have me confused with someone else. Online I have been nothing but polite on this blog. I have a differing opinion than you and pudge but that should not excuse the way you have treated me.
And I have never never even met you offline.
Posted by: Lysander on September 25, 2008 08:29 PMOn the contrary you have repeatedly claimed that those not sharing your Ronulan view of the world are not true Republicans. Disagreements among conservatives are fine. Your my way-or-the-highway approach is obstinate and tiresome. Moreover, you're insistence on putting words in other people's mouths (as you did above with me in reference to FDR) is not only a regular pattern with you, its completely rude.
And yes, we've never met. But I know people that have met you and seen you in action. By chance, they're not very complimentary.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 25, 2008 08:37 PMYour regular habit of incorrectly inferring/presuming beliefs of other people is what I find most bothersome. You very clearly have a very different line of thinking than most Republicans. Thus, you should be much less quick to make assumptions about their beliefs and/or train of thought on a particular issue. I've found that when you've done so with me that you are almost invariably wrong. That is more than a little tiresome in my view.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 25, 2008 08:42 PMAs for putting words in your mouth, it was not intentional and if it was truely that upsetting I apologize. I however do not feel I have done that. For example could you please show me where I have done that in this thread? At worst I might have misunderstood your intentions in speaking highly of FDR. A simple correction would be sufficient to move the conversation forward in a productive manner.
I would be very curious to know who it is that has met me in person that was not very complimentary. Do you mind sharing? Perhaps sharing what it was that made it not so pleasant? The only person I can think of would be Ross Marzolf. I was polite with him the entire time however was upfront that I found him to be a dishonest man whom I intend to remove from power in the republican party. I am sure he does not enjoy speaking to me because I am not afraid to call him out on his actions but I have never been rude to him and would be very surprised and saddened to hear he is thinks otherwise. I thought despite our difference we could be civil.
@53: I try not to make assumptions. If I do, please just point out that I have made a wrong assumption. I do the same to many others who ruitenly assume wrong things about me. Without writing novels on each posts there are bound to be assumptions made about others arguements.
But the important thing to do is keep it civil. I have tried to always maintain that and I would appreciate it if you would as well. If you can't feel free to ignore my posts. I would much rather get no response than rude responses. It also makes the blog more enjoyable for others to read which I would think would be in your best interest.
Posted by: Lysander on September 25, 2008 09:33 PM
A