Palin Options

[Robert]

I find myself in the awkward position of defending Obama about his flubs during unscripted speeches.
I'm sure I could find just as many flubs from McCain. The difference is Obama has been falsely been sold as a great public speaker, he's not. So people take note of every public goof. What he is good at is delivering a prepared speech, he's only average when it's unscripted. There is a bid difference between the two.
Clinton and Reagen were good at both.
Bush 43 sucks ass at both
Obama would be closer to Bush 41, who was only so-so without a script but did really well delivering prepared speeches like his 1000 points of light speech.
Just my opinion.

I was only able to catch parts of the debates, busy with the kiddies.
McCain got hurt on Iraq as I would expect.
He nailed the part about needing to cut spending, I noticed several times during it, the Independent score was even higher than Republican. Which is weird because it's a classic stance of Rep's
Now I'm waiting to see what the fact checkers have to say tomorrow.
I'm sure both sides will claim their guy won, the only thing I think everyone will agree on is the Mod did a shitty job. It was pathetic how far an often their answer were off topic to the original question. He tried to call them on it during the 2nd or 3rd question but pussed out by letting them do the same thing after asking the same question again after both of them didn't answer it the 1st time.
I want someone who will put them in their place.
I want a Mod who will say.....
That was a great answer but that wasn't my question, care to try again?
Did you not understand the question?
I asked a question, I don't remember asking for a speech.
Or for the "Pulp Fiction" fans like myself.
Do I stutter?
English mother fucker.... Do you speak it?

[Hellfighter]

.....the only thing I think everyone will agree on is the Mod did a shitty job.

nah- the mod was good- he was like a good ref in a boxing ring- he stayed out of the way to let everyone see the dust-up going on....
I liked the debate's flow- started a thread on it btw


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 09/27/08 12:19am

[HammaTime]

You may want to check your link again.
McCain did not vote to kill the amendment, he was one of the 3 who did not vote.

Damn, I really shouldn't try to work and gab with you guys at the same time. My bad.

I forget how many votes McCain has missed these past couple of years.

My point is that true pork barrel spending comes from earmarks that are inserted in unrelated, and often essential bills, or bills that are almost certain to pass easily with little debate. Holding a Senator up for supporting an earmark (like McCain voting for the very Bear DNA bill he loves to rant against) is grossly unfair, you might as well castigate all the Senators ... hey, wait a minute ... we might be on to something here! :-)

The the Republican deregulation is a great catch all to blame the current crisis on. My problem with it is the lack of link between subprime mortgages an the actual deregulation resulting from Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The GLB act allowed the different financial services ( banks, securities companies and insurance companies ) to intermix, it had nothing to do with subprime mortgages.

Wow, that isn't what I've read. In fact, as I understand it (and hell, this area is so complicated, even the so-called experts failed to grasp what was happening), the key ingredient was the ability for the mortgage brokers to bundle those bad subprime mortgages and sell them to insurance companies as swaps. Some of my best clients have been banks (and hell, my soon to be ex-wife is a Senior VP at one of the nation's biggest banks) and I remember keenly when the insurance companies started mixing readily in the banking business. The bad thing was once the bundlers unloaded their crap, they were free to grab more lenders. All they were concerned about was volume and fees, all the risk was passed on to unregulated and unrelated businesses.

One investor explained that it is easy to evaluate one mortgage. You look at the house, you look at the buyer and you make a judgment based on what you see. With a bundle of a 1,000 mortgages, it is impossible to properly evaluate the actual worth. The real problem was the "go-go" attitude where everyone thought real estate would always go UP.

Here is a great article from early 2000 that made the potential problem so very apparent.

And a more modern explanation.

This post has been edited by HammaTime: 09/26/08 11:57pm

[Blitz]

I find myself in the awkward position of defending Obama about his flubs during unscripted speeches.
I'm sure I could find just as many flubs from McCain. The difference is Obama has been falsely been sold as a great public speaker, he's not.

MY point exactly, Here is the solution to fixing the debate issue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXTDURmSrQo

P.S. Newt is a WAY better debater and speaker than enyone running out there now. That clip was part of the Cooper Union Debate with Mario Quomo. It runs 1-1/2 hours and is a very good debate.

It can be seen here

http://www.scribemedia.org/2007/03/03/lincoln-debate/


Back to your regular chanel...... Oh and Palin at Least got everyone interested again I for won was very apathetic about this election.

[Robert]

Sorry hamma but neither of your links point to any connection between the GLB ACT an the current Financial mess. I agree it's easy to find an economist to lay blame on GLB but it's because they point to generalized deregulation like GLB as the problem, I have yet to see a write up which isn't more fluff than fact. I have done a ton of reading over the last week an have seen countless indirect accusation as GLB as the cause but not single in depth article pointing out why.
It's a lot of smoke an mirrors. I think we partially agree credit swapping via mortgage backed securities played a part by enabling this mess. What we don't agree is the link between MBS and the GLB. I've read dozens of article which mention mortgage backed securities an GLB Act, thereby linking the two. That's a intentional misrepresentation by people who for whatever reason are trying to link the two together.
If there was such a direct link between credit swapping via MBS an the GLB Act, why hasn't someone pointed directly to what part of the GLB act that is to blame. I'll tell you why, because the GLB Act has zero to do with mortgage backed securities.
We've both previous pointed to credit swapping as part of the problem. Well the reason why GLB doesn't have anything to do with credit swapping via MBS, is because MBS predated it by 11 years.
The GLB Act was passed in 1979
The National Housing Act of 1968, part of the Civil Right Act is what introduced MBS securities not the GLB act.
By now everyone has heard of Fannie Mae an Freddie Mac. Well let me introduce you to their illegitimate little brother "Ginnie Mae"
"Ginnie Mae is credited with creating the Mortgage-Backed Security (MBS) [2] program in 1968. The purpose of the mortgage-backed security program is to attract new sources of capital for residential mortgage loans by increasing liquidity in the secondary mortgage market."
So now the challenge for you or anyone else who wants to point to the GLB act as the cause of the problem. You would have to completely bypass the part Fannie an Freddie played in allowing banks to write bad mortgages and the part Ginnie Mae played by enabling banks to hide the amount of subprime debt via credit swapping. Credit swapping via MBS which was legislated 11 years before the GLB act.
A little more impartial look at the subprime mess than the typical "it's the fault of the Republicans an the GLB Act."
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2007/12/dodd.htm
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArti...;issue=20080918

[Shred]

I am worried about Sarah on Thursday. I think Biden will unleash on her.

[HammaTime]

There is a good article printed in the New York Times which mirrors much of what you are saying, but they point the finger in a very specific direction:

They got in trouble by making a series of risky new bets while Washington did nothing new to stand in the way. “What you’ve got,” said Robert Barbera, a Wall Street economist, “is a system that has gone wildly beyond the safety nets that were in place.” Financial firms chopped bad mortgages into thousands of little pieces and deluded themselves into thinking that the sum of the parts was safer than the whole.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley isn’t entirely blameless. For one thing, the mergers it encouraged left banks with more capital to invest; some of the capital ended up in that deluded subprime mortgage market. But the law doesn’t deserve the mythical importance it’s now accumulating.

Who, then, in Washington, is to blame? As it happens, it’s many of the same people who were behind Gramm-Leach-Bliley. The Clinton administration and Congressional Republicans failed to create a strong framework in place of Glass-Steagall. Democrats pushed for riskier mortgage lending, in an effort to expand home ownership. But surely the bulk of the blame lies with the policy makers and regulators who were on duty while the housing bubble inflated and Wall Street went wild — the Bush administration and Alan Greenspan’s Federal Reserve. Their near-religious belief in the powers of the market led them to conclude that the mere fact that a company was willing to make an investment made that investment O.K.

One of the most influential members of this crowd was none other than Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican and former senator who helped bring down Glass-Steagall. For more than two decades in Congress he argued that the forces of the market had to be freed from government interference. Just a year after the passage of Gramm- Leach-Bliley, he was largely responsible for another bill — the Commodity Futures Modernization Act — that clearly did contribute to the current crisis. That law unleashed the derivatives market and paved the way for banks to become more aggressive about investing in mortgages. As recently as this summer, he was still saying that the biggest problem facing the American economy was excessive regulation. So the bill that bears Gramm’s name may be getting a bad rap, but there is also a bit of justice in the misunderstanding.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/magazine...reconsider.html

I'll try to restate my opinion one more time here. The key change that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley brought about was not the credit swapping, it was the ability of NON-REGULATED financial firms to play an active role. Prior to GLB, only banks could be players, GLB enabled firms like insurance giant AIG to become active.

A quote I found that sums up the problem with blaming instruments like credit swaps, "It's like saying it's the gun's fault when someone gets shot."

The same can be applied to GLB. That ensured that every player had access to the gun, the problem was that no one bothered to watch how the gun was used.

[Robert]

Funny but also very right
http://www.videosift.com/video/Craig-Fergu...ous-Voting-Rant

[HammaTime]

I am worried about Sarah on Thursday. I think Biden will unleash on her.

Yes, lets bring this thread back to Palin!

Everyone has to be startled by her performance in the Couric interviews. Shocking, upsetting, mysterious even.

Is it a ploy? Would they have her purposefully act like a space cadet to push expectations into the gutter, with the hope that even a modest performance in the debate will seem like a screaming home run? Could they really be that tactical?

That interview was so dramatically different from the Palin we saw as Governor, it absolutely has to be a stunt, and the McCain campaign has so obviously become the campaign of stunts.

All of McCain's distractions seemed timed to lessen the impact of that interview and their falling poll numbers.

What do you say, Robert? Are you still a firm Palin supporter, or are you having buyer's remorse like Kathleen Parker and George Will ?

The Rovian playbook is becoming a bit too well known. Rule number one: attack your opponent with your weakness. Rule number two: lower expectations. Rule number three: distract

The shouts of concern from conservative talking heads has a ring of Rovian talking points to me. I think a plan has been hatched and Rove is about to pull a fast one. I say, expect to see Palin hitting them out of the park during the debate.

This post has been edited by HammaTime: 09/28/08 9:49pm

[UNDEAD 1]

i would like to see more talk on the bail out,palin seems to be irrelevent at this point.

[Hellfighter]

i would like to see more talk on the bail out,palin seems to be irrelevent at this point.

I think this thread should stay Palin. She pales a bit in comparison to the current economy issue, but her as a VP/potential prez is a future issue to ponder.

I think the bailout plan needs a new thread - I'll start it up.
Maybe Robert can shift current bailout specific posts into that thread.

Is it a ploy? Would they have her purposefully act like a space cadet to push expectations into the gutter, with the hope that even a modest performance in the debate will seem like a screaming home run? Could they really be that tactical?

The first thing that troubled me about Palin amidst all her triumphant impressive entry into the race was that in spite of all her bravado, she gave off no inclination to giving her agenda on worldly affairs. She also had a very antagonizing tone that worried me regarding her having sincere diplomatic skills in an international theater.

I hardly think this is a grand-master ploy. Palin is in quicksand in this regard. She naturally doesn't have that world-stage demeanour/information depth or 'eagerness' required as a world leader. Just about everyone not in denial notices she's that she struggles to give the impression she has that capability or desire... Conservatives who are down to earth see it too.

I think the Obama Campaign did a good move in lowering expectations for his first debate.

I am worried about Sarah on Thursday. I think Biden will unleash on her.

I think the Obama campaign is telling Biden DO NOT UNLEASH on Palin.
They know the offended/sympathetic vote is ready to rally to Palin if she gets too trashed upon and she actually holds up against the storm.... ie, gets considerable homework done by the time of the debate in appearing capably worldly. That's why Biden should refrain from playing pitbull - if he doesn't succeed at it, it'll blow up in his face.
Biden must be getting tactical orders to do what mcCain did to Obama in their debate, and for the most part put forth his experience and simply ignore Palin.... their ploy maybe to simply let Palin trip up over herself without too much provocation -or if any, very trickily underplayed yet decisive.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 09/29/08 10:03am

[Robert]

Concerning the notion GLB act is somehow to blame for this current mess. Hamma even the NYT article you linked to admits the connection between the 2 is vague at best.
"To many banking experts, the reason is simple enough: namely, that the law didn’t really do much to create the current crisis. It is a handy scapegoat, since it’s easily the biggest piece of financial deregulation in recent decades."
Which has been my point all along.
Even the 2nd Newsweek article you link to does nothing to show a connection between the GLB Act an the current financial crisis. The GLB had zero to do with allowing CDS or their derivatives.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall had no effect on Wall Street’s move into complex and risky financial instruments like credit derivatives because Glass-Steagall wasn't about preventing those kinds of risk.
Even more to the point is the fact no where else has laws preventing of intermixing of insurance, banking and securities which Glass-Steagall prevented yet they didn't suffer the same crisis as us.
Consider this, Lehman was one of the 1st to fail even though it was about as pure of investment only bank as possible, so GLB made little change in how it did business.
Greed by both Wall Street an Main street are to blame but you can't ignore the fact Government has their fingerprints all over this mess too.
* CRA required banks to increase high risk ( subprime ) loans by 20%
* Fannie and Freddie enabled banks an lenders like countrywide to write junk loans.
* Ginnie Mae created Mortgage-Backed Security which allowed other lenders to hide the amount of risk they carried
Just like the dot-com bust, which was built on phantom goods an services. This was a financial bubble built most on junk mortgages



Back to the Palin an the upcoming debate.
I don't expect the debate to be a Palin victory, probably break even. I do think those who expect her to curl up in the fetal position will surprised. Much like Hamma mentioned, it's been interesting to see the liberal perspective swing form "Biden is going to rape her during the debate" to the current idea her previous poor showing was some supper secret plan to lower expectations.
As for
"What do you say, Robert? Are you still a firm Palin supporter, or are you having buyer's remorse like Kathleen Parker"
Liberals have been very quick to point to the so-called buyer remorse among "Conservatives" like Kathleen Parker.
A few things worth pointing out.
1) Parker never was a Plain supporter, only said she thought she was a good pick based on Obama dissing Hilliary, which bring me to point #2
2) How can anyone still call Kathleen a conservative when she considered herself a Hillary supporter during the democrat presidential race. Doesn't sound like a conservative to me.
3) Parker is only more of the same sexism seen previously in the race in regards to Palin. Implying Palin should recuse herself to take care of her kids. This by the way from the same person who claimed women have no place in the military an personally attack Jessica Lynch in her book. This is the same so called "Conservative" who found herself not only in agreement with Ahmadinejad but supports his views when it comes to women in the military.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7040601549.html
Sorry, but calling her a conservative, dirties the name.

People seem to overlook how much of a free ride Biden has got when compared to the news media criticism of Palin. Since Biden was picked there have been numerous fumbles by him which barely if at all got any mention in the news. Just look at his newest one
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...ation-question/
The press would have been all over McCain or Palin if they would have implied scores where down in schools because of to many black students. If McCain or Plain had made that remark, Democrats along with most media outlests would be calling for their heads.

[HammaTime]

1) Parker never was a Plain supporter, only said she thought she was a good pick based on Obama disses Hilliary, which bring me to point #2

Kathleen Parker, September 5, 2008 - "It is delightful to feel good about oneself and Palin delivered energy where spirits had flagged and inspired a vision that had become blurred.

Glancing around the convention center in St. Paul, it was not hard to see that the GOP is in dire need of a transfusion. I've been to retirement villages that had fewer gray hairs and to Old South parties that were more diverse. For whatever reason, the Republican Party has not been able to attract young people or minorities in numbers that reflect the mainstream America they purport to represent.

Is it the message or the messenger? Both — and Republicans know it. Behind closed doors around the Twin Cities, talk focused on the need for new templates, new models. Republicans have to communicate that they, too, care about the issues Democrats have claimed as their own — education, health and the environment. They need new ideas and new — younger — faces to deliver the message.

Voila. Enter Palin.

Some have criticized McCain for cynically selecting a woman only to try to attract former Hillary Clinton supporters. Obviously, there's some truth to that. Being a woman is part of Palin's appeal and running mates are often picked in hopes of securing a particular state or demographic.

But Palin brings more to the ticket than the possibility of a few female voters. She has animated voters who had little enthusiasm for the race. She has given them the very thing Democrats have been enjoying the past several months: hope and change.

That's potent medicine. It also should come with a warning label: "May cause delusions and a false sense of power."

Kathleen Parker, Sept 10 - "And can she lead it, if necessary? McCain seems to think so. Or does he? Whatever the case, his political judgment in selecting the Alaska governor was keen. With that singular flourish, he signaled the Republican base that he isn't a RINO (Republican In Name Only) after all. And, he co-opted the Democrats' claim to represent women's interests by picking a woman who makes feminists look like sissy-girls."

2) How can anyone still call Kathleen a conservative when she considered herself a Hillary supporter during the democrat presidential race. Doesn't sound like a conservative to me.

Weren't all[u] the conservative's supporting the Hillary campaign? Rush Limbaugh was going out of his way to drum up support for Hillary.

I get a kick out of how quickly people are thrown under the bus when they voice an independent thought. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to throw George Will under the bus. Is he a neo-liberal now?

[Hellfighter]

....................
Liberals have been very quick to point to the so-called buyer remorse among "Conservatives" like Kathleen Parker.


People seem to overlook how much of a free ride Biden has got when compared to the news media criticism of Palin. Since Biden was picked there have been numerous fumbles by him which barely if at all got any mention in the news. Just look at his newest one
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...ation-question/
The press would have been all over McCain or Palin if they would have implied scores where down in schools because of to many black students. If McCain or Plain had made that remark, Democrats along with most media outlests would be calling for their heads.

For starters no sane Dem/ Lib/Repub /conserv is expecting Palin to curl up. She's as tough as nails and has the record to show it. The overwhelming consensus is that she doesn't have any capable international insight. She'll be tripping up over herself- Biden won't be going after her throat like most right wingers seem to think. That's a bad strategy if Palin turns out to hold her own; it'll make her look stronger.

You're surely aware many conservatives had grave misgivings about Palin when she was first picked up as the VP option. You're making it seems like all conservatives were soundly behind her as the pick and they have suddenly switched in their opinion. That's not true. I think that's a right-wing fanciful notion circulating around in their circles.

The media goes after whoever makes the biggest stir - Obama was hammered for months over the Rev.wright issue. What exactly has Biden done that's so worthy of media sensation and scrutiny compared to Palin's recent seqences of flubbing interviews.... all the candidates have been making foolish statements/ 1 liners... and McCain was up to some bizarre antics last week- simple truth is Palin has topped the list. It's funny how right-wingers who ponder on those those thoughts were not wishing Biden had equal media time when Palin was rolling in her 1st 2 weeks of solid sensational media coverage.

Another common right wing observation is that somehow Obama and Biden get away with doing/saying certain things. It was alright for Palin to call hockey moms bulldogs with lipstick -but then Obama makes a referral to pigs with lipstick and he gets slaughtered over the assumed implication. After the initial 2 weeks of Palin's entrance in which the media also made the expected low blow attacks on Palin they backed off and didn't touch her for some time. Maybe right-wing crowd would like viewpoints like those expressed on FOX to resound more, but life's not fair - right now it's Palin getting her fair share of knocks -maybe Biden's is coming up soon. Obama and McCain have taken their fair share so far. Palin would be wise to not adopt a sour grapes /'why is everyone picking on me' demeanour ; that's one good thing amongst other good qualities she has at least.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 09/29/08 4:16pm

[HammaTime]

Concerning the notion GLB act is somehow to blame for this current mess. Hamma even the NYT article you linked to admits the connection between the 2 is vague at best.

I'm really starting to think that you don't read anything I write. Did you miss my opening sentence??? "There is a good article printed in the New York Times which mirrors much of what you are saying..."

I linked to the NYTimes article PRECISELY because of their quote "the law didn’t really do much to create the current crisis."

The closest we have to an "evil-doer" here is Gramm and his Commodity Futures Modernization Act which paved the way for credit swaps, and is what has been blamed for our $4/gallon gas this summer.

If you want to talk about bubbles, here is the root cause, the 262-page bill specified that neither the SEC or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission were able to oversee the financial institutions that were dealing with credit swaps. No oversight meant these folks didn't have to prove they had assets to cover their investments.