Friday, September 19, 2008
Does Team Obama have a clue? (Update: Is Bush doing something right?)
(Note: I finally solved the issue with Blogger, so I'm reprinting this post with some new material at the end.)
We don't exactly have equal treatment of gaffes, do we? Every time the left press catches McCain in an embarrassment -- the Spain thing, for example -- they harp on it incessantly. But when Obama makes an even worse error, the progs pretend it never occurred.
Case in point: The Lightbringer's reaction to the bailout of AIG. The government's intervention amounts to the nationalization of the company, although we must never use that phrase.
At first, Obama seemed to oppose the na...the bailout, probably under advice from Chicago-schooler Austan Goolsbee. Actually, his first statement managed to be both critical and non-committal. Read it for yourself and see what you make of it.
As for Joe Biden, his initial thoughts were clear enough:
But then it occurred to these genuises that strong government action was the only thing keeping the entire financial system from shredding into confetti. Without the bailout, today's Wall Street rally would not have occurred. That's when Obi decided that he supported the nationa...er, the bailout. Well, not "support":
This confusing series of events prompted Jonathan Martin to ask...
The financial crisis is the issue of the moment. Obama now has an opportunity to demonstrate vision and boldness. Instead, he has spread himself all over the map like an overturned bucket of warm gelatin.
Josh Marshall thinks that we're supposed to cheer Obama's squishiness. We're supposed to consider McCain at fault for not keeping up with Obama's shifting positions. And we're supposed to give a damn about whether John McCain forgot the name of the guy running Spain right now.
The headline on TPM: Obama Hits McCain As Economic Flip-Flopper.
There's truth in that charge. On Tuesday, McCain said that he didn't want taxpayers on the hook; on Wednesday, he said that he decided that the bailout might be a necessary evil. In other words, he changed his mind. At least he let people know what he was thinking without trying to double-talk his way out of taking a stand.
But the "flip flop" charge is pretty galling when it comes from a candidate who would not issue a clear statement until he held up his own flipper in the air to feel which way the wind was blowing. Now Obama talks as though he favors the bailout strongly (as opposed to his previous position of "non-opposition"). He offers this criticism of McCain:
Let's talk flip-flopping, shall we? Obi has a history. I cite but two examples:
1. In 2007, Obama slammed Hillary with campaign literature that said "I don't think NAFTA has been good for America -- and I never have." But in 2004 he issued this statement: "The United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA."
2. In 2007, he slammed the Iraq surge as a terrible idea. Earlier this month, he said that the surge had "succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated.” And he removed all anti-surge rhetoric from his website.
We've always been at war with Eastasia. We've never been at war with Westasia.
Returning our attention to the current financial crisis, I must ask: Does Team Obama have a clue? Let's go back to Joe Biden's interview:
Look, I have never supported tax cuts to the affluent. I think that we now have to reach deep into the wallets of the wealthy, because our red-ink nation needs cash and that's where the money is. I also suspect that only a Republican can pull off this trick, just as only a Nixon could go to China.
But Biden was supposed to be addressing the AIG bailout, which was all about the mortgage crisis. (AIG insures all of those wacky financial instruments based on mortgages.) For Biden to talk about tax policy in that context is akin to saying "This car needs a paint job" after a tire blows out.
Yes, it's true: When ideology collided with reality, McCain changed his thinking. But let's face it -- the Democrats still don't know what to think.
UPDATE: It occurs to me that both McCain and Obama have a problem here. They both must separate themselves from Bush -- after all, Dubya got us into this financial mess in the first place. So the natural instinct of both candidates is to denounce whatever the present administration is doing.
But -- and I know that this thought will strike many of you as heretical -- what if Bush is finally, finally doing something right?
What if, after seven-and-a-half years' worth of unending upfucks, Dubya finally got a clue or two about how to do his damned job? What if he started listening to the more sensible people in his administration? What if he is finally allowing practical necessity to trump ideology?
Don't misunderstand -- I'm not giving Bush any great kudos here. He's the fool who ruined the economy. But the AIG nationalization was the right thing to do. And there are signs that he will do other right things, such as putting new regulations in place, asking for loan renegotiations and (perhaps) instituting a moratorium on foreclosures.
He got us into this pickle, and history will condemn him for it. But his administration has made a few recent moves which are curiously uninfected by his characteristic stupidity. That puts Obama and McCain in an awkward place.
We don't exactly have equal treatment of gaffes, do we? Every time the left press catches McCain in an embarrassment -- the Spain thing, for example -- they harp on it incessantly. But when Obama makes an even worse error, the progs pretend it never occurred.
Case in point: The Lightbringer's reaction to the bailout of AIG. The government's intervention amounts to the nationalization of the company, although we must never use that phrase.
At first, Obama seemed to oppose the na...the bailout, probably under advice from Chicago-schooler Austan Goolsbee. Actually, his first statement managed to be both critical and non-committal. Read it for yourself and see what you make of it.
As for Joe Biden, his initial thoughts were clear enough:
No, I don't think they should be bailed out by the federal government.Well. Excuuuuuse me for thinking that this might be Obama's position as well.
But then it occurred to these genuises that strong government action was the only thing keeping the entire financial system from shredding into confetti. Without the bailout, today's Wall Street rally would not have occurred. That's when Obi decided that he supported the nationa...er, the bailout. Well, not "support":
He just didn't oppose it, I was told.McCain, going by first impressions, lashed out at Obama for not supporting the nationalization-that-dare-not-say-its-name. The point seemed reasonable enough. Here's Obi's response...
"And today he accused me of not supporting what the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank did with AIG despite no evidence whatsoever that that’s what I had said."Biden's statement wasn't "evidence"?
This confusing series of events prompted Jonathan Martin to ask...
Where, I wonder, is the line between not opposing and, ya know, supporting?Looks to me as though Obama bought time by offering words that sounded bold but were actually non-committal. Amazingly, the prog pundits are okay with this.
The financial crisis is the issue of the moment. Obama now has an opportunity to demonstrate vision and boldness. Instead, he has spread himself all over the map like an overturned bucket of warm gelatin.
Josh Marshall thinks that we're supposed to cheer Obama's squishiness. We're supposed to consider McCain at fault for not keeping up with Obama's shifting positions. And we're supposed to give a damn about whether John McCain forgot the name of the guy running Spain right now.
The headline on TPM: Obama Hits McCain As Economic Flip-Flopper.
There's truth in that charge. On Tuesday, McCain said that he didn't want taxpayers on the hook; on Wednesday, he said that he decided that the bailout might be a necessary evil. In other words, he changed his mind. At least he let people know what he was thinking without trying to double-talk his way out of taking a stand.
But the "flip flop" charge is pretty galling when it comes from a candidate who would not issue a clear statement until he held up his own flipper in the air to feel which way the wind was blowing. Now Obama talks as though he favors the bailout strongly (as opposed to his previous position of "non-opposition"). He offers this criticism of McCain:
On Tuesday, he said the government should stand by and allow one of the nation's largest insurers to collapse, putting the well-being of millions of Americans at risk. But by Wednesday, he changed his mind.Okay, this passage seems to be pro-bailout -- but look closely at these words. Nowhere does Obama actually say whether or not he supports the bailout. This gives him flipping room if the winds should change direction once more.
Let's talk flip-flopping, shall we? Obi has a history. I cite but two examples:
1. In 2007, Obama slammed Hillary with campaign literature that said "I don't think NAFTA has been good for America -- and I never have." But in 2004 he issued this statement: "The United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA."
2. In 2007, he slammed the Iraq surge as a terrible idea. Earlier this month, he said that the surge had "succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated.” And he removed all anti-surge rhetoric from his website.
We've always been at war with Eastasia. We've never been at war with Westasia.
Returning our attention to the current financial crisis, I must ask: Does Team Obama have a clue? Let's go back to Joe Biden's interview:
No, I don't think they [AIG] should be bailed out by the federal government. I'll tell you what we should do. We should try to correct the problems that caused this. And what's caused this? The profligate tax cuts to the very, very wealthy that John wants to continue.Say what?
Look, I have never supported tax cuts to the affluent. I think that we now have to reach deep into the wallets of the wealthy, because our red-ink nation needs cash and that's where the money is. I also suspect that only a Republican can pull off this trick, just as only a Nixon could go to China.
But Biden was supposed to be addressing the AIG bailout, which was all about the mortgage crisis. (AIG insures all of those wacky financial instruments based on mortgages.) For Biden to talk about tax policy in that context is akin to saying "This car needs a paint job" after a tire blows out.
Yes, it's true: When ideology collided with reality, McCain changed his thinking. But let's face it -- the Democrats still don't know what to think.
UPDATE: It occurs to me that both McCain and Obama have a problem here. They both must separate themselves from Bush -- after all, Dubya got us into this financial mess in the first place. So the natural instinct of both candidates is to denounce whatever the present administration is doing.
But -- and I know that this thought will strike many of you as heretical -- what if Bush is finally, finally doing something right?
What if, after seven-and-a-half years' worth of unending upfucks, Dubya finally got a clue or two about how to do his damned job? What if he started listening to the more sensible people in his administration? What if he is finally allowing practical necessity to trump ideology?
Don't misunderstand -- I'm not giving Bush any great kudos here. He's the fool who ruined the economy. But the AIG nationalization was the right thing to do. And there are signs that he will do other right things, such as putting new regulations in place, asking for loan renegotiations and (perhaps) instituting a moratorium on foreclosures.
He got us into this pickle, and history will condemn him for it. But his administration has made a few recent moves which are curiously uninfected by his characteristic stupidity. That puts Obama and McCain in an awkward place.
I'm glad the Republicans didn't succeed in privatizing Social Security. They wanted to turn it over to the people we're bailing out. Go Republicans!
I concur. Are sure that doesn't have something to do with that particle reactor or does it have more to do The Marching Morons: ??
What if, after seven-and-a-half years' worth of unending upfucks, Dubya finally got a clue or two about how to do his damned job? What if he started listening to the more sensible people in his administration? What if he is finally allowing practical necessity to trump ideology?
Not to give a whole lot of credit to GW, but it was in Suskind's book that we learn that when Cheney wanted to do a second round of tax cuts for the rich, Bush said something along the lines of: Didn't they already get one? - meaning that he thought perhaps it should go to the middle class - and Cheney (and Rove) shut him down. I saw there that even Bush had a glimmer of comprehension that what they were doing was, at best, misguided.
Maybe he just told Cheney to take a flying leap?
Not to give a whole lot of credit to GW, but it was in Suskind's book that we learn that when Cheney wanted to do a second round of tax cuts for the rich, Bush said something along the lines of: Didn't they already get one? - meaning that he thought perhaps it should go to the middle class - and Cheney (and Rove) shut him down. I saw there that even Bush had a glimmer of comprehension that what they were doing was, at best, misguided.
Maybe he just told Cheney to take a flying leap?
The enormity of the AIG debacle is even now not clear. But we are talking well above $1 trillion dollars in "assets," of unknown and probably impossible to know (eventual, but not now obtaining) "value."
That is, the AIG situation and the inevitable follow-on companies in similar straights absolutely dwarf anything the world has ever seen, let alone what any government has tried to handle.
There is no politician in the world with adequate financial chops to know the depths of this situation, and accordingly, the appropriate response (if any exist). For, there is no financial expert in the world with this knowledge, either.
Will some King Kong sized rescue commitment of $1 trillion dollars fix this, or will it simply kick the can down the road a few months? Nobody knows.
In fact, the trillion or so in the AIG mess is itself dwarfed by the $450 trillion in derivatives, which form the 800 pound gorilla bubble.
A little modesty from the politicos is in order. It strikes me as exactly correct to withhold endorsement of any action which at this time is sight unseen.
XIslander
That is, the AIG situation and the inevitable follow-on companies in similar straights absolutely dwarf anything the world has ever seen, let alone what any government has tried to handle.
There is no politician in the world with adequate financial chops to know the depths of this situation, and accordingly, the appropriate response (if any exist). For, there is no financial expert in the world with this knowledge, either.
Will some King Kong sized rescue commitment of $1 trillion dollars fix this, or will it simply kick the can down the road a few months? Nobody knows.
In fact, the trillion or so in the AIG mess is itself dwarfed by the $450 trillion in derivatives, which form the 800 pound gorilla bubble.
A little modesty from the politicos is in order. It strikes me as exactly correct to withhold endorsement of any action which at this time is sight unseen.
XIslander
I think this is being framed as Paulson and Bernanke doing something right, rather than Bush. And to be fair, I don't think most Americans know what to think about what is going on.
My opinion (FWIW) is you had a corrupt financial system, which was being abused by politicians cos it generates semi-legit cash. Same thing as the Jack Abramoff problem. Bi-partisan in this case, or at least more so than Abramoff. Who wants to discuss the reality of that now? And many many people were talking about these issues 3-4 years ago.
I agree. McCain has the right to bow to inevitability. He was always a moron on the economy. I think of him as the next Herbert Hoover.
Watching Obama, he clearly doesn't know what to think. Its all too complicated for him to grasp. So he is doing the smart thing and agreeing with people who seem to know what they are talking about. And he is doing it with such gravitas. Very impressive.
Harry
My opinion (FWIW) is you had a corrupt financial system, which was being abused by politicians cos it generates semi-legit cash. Same thing as the Jack Abramoff problem. Bi-partisan in this case, or at least more so than Abramoff. Who wants to discuss the reality of that now? And many many people were talking about these issues 3-4 years ago.
I agree. McCain has the right to bow to inevitability. He was always a moron on the economy. I think of him as the next Herbert Hoover.
Watching Obama, he clearly doesn't know what to think. Its all too complicated for him to grasp. So he is doing the smart thing and agreeing with people who seem to know what they are talking about. And he is doing it with such gravitas. Very impressive.
Harry
XIslander
Oh fer cryin' out loud. Obama is running for the biggest job in the world. His reaction right now is very much like his "participation" in the SEIU Health Care forum back in March 2007, where he showed up unprepared and uninformed to talk about health care and his plan. Instead he talked of "developing consensus" and working out a plan. Seriously, he came to a health care forum and did a "Bill and Ted" thinking his charm would win the day. That is where Barack Obama went to the bottom of my list.
He's doing the same damn thing now: consulting with "experts" because, once again, he's caught with his pants down on a subject that has been front and center for gawd knows how long. Hillary knew this was coming. She's been warning about it, AND offering concrete solutions to it, for months, if not years.
Quit making excuses for your candidate. He wants to get the keys to the White House in four months. He needs to do better than this.
Oh fer cryin' out loud. Obama is running for the biggest job in the world. His reaction right now is very much like his "participation" in the SEIU Health Care forum back in March 2007, where he showed up unprepared and uninformed to talk about health care and his plan. Instead he talked of "developing consensus" and working out a plan. Seriously, he came to a health care forum and did a "Bill and Ted" thinking his charm would win the day. That is where Barack Obama went to the bottom of my list.
He's doing the same damn thing now: consulting with "experts" because, once again, he's caught with his pants down on a subject that has been front and center for gawd knows how long. Hillary knew this was coming. She's been warning about it, AND offering concrete solutions to it, for months, if not years.
Quit making excuses for your candidate. He wants to get the keys to the White House in four months. He needs to do better than this.
I'd agree with you, bluelyon, if, I say IF, the candidates have been given extensive briefing time with Paulson, Bernanke, etc., AND if those parties clearly knew what was what.
To my knowledge, no such briefings have been laid onto the candidates (the economic principals being a little busy right now), and it appears clear that no one can truly know what the full problem is, let alone its solution, since this world-wide contagion has never been seen before.
A demand that candidates ready, fire, aim, and shoot off their mouths without any kind of adequate base of knowledge, I guess proves the Clinton adage that often the American people want strong, if wrong, posturing from their leaders.
Obama is not 'my' candidate, exactly, although as a life-long Democrat, he is our party's candidate, and I will support him on that basis.
However, an immediate move to support a sight-unseen trillion dollar likely abuse of the taxpayers' money would be no recommendation of a candidate. Likewise, a rejection on the same grounds.
Yes, as president, they would have to make a faster decision, but then again they'd have the benefit of all the counsel of all these senior policy officials they'd ask for.
XIslander
To my knowledge, no such briefings have been laid onto the candidates (the economic principals being a little busy right now), and it appears clear that no one can truly know what the full problem is, let alone its solution, since this world-wide contagion has never been seen before.
A demand that candidates ready, fire, aim, and shoot off their mouths without any kind of adequate base of knowledge, I guess proves the Clinton adage that often the American people want strong, if wrong, posturing from their leaders.
Obama is not 'my' candidate, exactly, although as a life-long Democrat, he is our party's candidate, and I will support him on that basis.
However, an immediate move to support a sight-unseen trillion dollar likely abuse of the taxpayers' money would be no recommendation of a candidate. Likewise, a rejection on the same grounds.
Yes, as president, they would have to make a faster decision, but then again they'd have the benefit of all the counsel of all these senior policy officials they'd ask for.
XIslander
Wow, has this crisis just appeared from out of the blue? Has Bernanke just now suddenly appeared on the scene? Has he not been in charge for some time now? How about Paulson? Did no one know how to get hold of them before this week?
How do you explain Hillary's solid plan for dealing with this crisis? These storm clouds have been gathering for quite some time and Hillary has been paying attention all along, has already consulted with the experts behind the scenes and has presented a coherent plan to deal with the crisis. She, Obama and McCain are all in the Senate. I am sure their calls are answered with equal alacrity. There is no need to give the candidates a special "briefing." They are the ones who are already supposed to be in-the-know. If they aren't, they shouldn't be looking for a promotion.
Post a Comment
<< Home
How do you explain Hillary's solid plan for dealing with this crisis? These storm clouds have been gathering for quite some time and Hillary has been paying attention all along, has already consulted with the experts behind the scenes and has presented a coherent plan to deal with the crisis. She, Obama and McCain are all in the Senate. I am sure their calls are answered with equal alacrity. There is no need to give the candidates a special "briefing." They are the ones who are already supposed to be in-the-know. If they aren't, they shouldn't be looking for a promotion.
