John McCain is Dangerously Unqualified to be President
John McCain has been receiving adulatory coverage from the press at least since his 2000 run for the Republican nomination. He tends to get a free pass on issues that would injure or cripple other politicians. Unfortunately, this has allowed many aspects of his politics and personality to fly under he radar to the extent that most Americans are unaware of just how dangerously unqualified he is to be President. The facts are clear: John McCain is unqualified to be President.
. . .
Ignorance of Economics
McCain recently proposed a policy that shows he is dangerously ignorant of economics (the alternative is that he is pandering, take your pick). He has proposed a "gas tax holiday", a suspension of the federal gas tax (and diesel tax) between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Unfortunately for McCain, since the gas tax holiday won't affect supply, it will have the effect of increasing demand and consumption, the exact opposite of what we should be encouraging at this time. Also, as a matter of policy short term tax increases or decreases are generally ineffective and increase transaction costs for both vendors and customers. All in all, a horrible proposal that will do little to no good.
But the economics clown show doesn't stop there, his HOME proposal to allow homeowners to trade in their existing mortgage for an FHA loan essentially federalizes the mortgage market and makes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the loaners of last resort (and strengthens the widely held belief that the Fed and the Federal government will never let them fail).
He has proposed instituting a second method of computing income taxes and giving taxpayers the choice of which system they wish to file under, increasing complexity and costing money. As usual, he has not proposed nay funding mechanism to make up for the budget dollars lost through this approach. He also fails to explain how two tax systems are simpler than one.
But the biggest and most blatant example of his ignorance is his prescription of lower taxes and unspecified budget cuts leading to ever higher deficits and debt and an ever lower value of the dollar. McCain used to actually oppose the Bush tax cuts but now in obeisance to Republican fundamentalism he's downed the tax cut kool-aid. I shouldn't need to point this out again, but I will for any Republicans or 12 year olds who may be reading this - if you cut taxes while running a deficit you are not cutting taxes, just deferring them with interest to future taxpayers. The actual budget cuts McCain has specified are risible - he's only specified "earmarks" which totaled $18 billion last year. He has said that he will cut $160 billion from discretionary spending - approximately 20% of total discretionary (non-entitlement, non-military) spending, but it's the usual Republican shell game of not identifying specific budget cuts while campaigning. On the other hand, McCain has specified over $400 billion in additional spending. Even if we take him at his word we are looking at massive deficits during his administration. We saw the same bait and switch in the Bush campaign of 2000, and our national debt is now $5 trillion higher than when he took office.
McCain has also twisted the meaning of words to an extent unknown to non-Republicans by calling the expiration of tax cuts a tax increase. Let's remember that these tax cuts were passed with an expiration date by a Republican President and a Republican Congress specifically because they couldn't get political support for permanent tax cuts. He also dishonestly uses OMB figures to describe the impact of his tax and spending plans, the OMB projections that explicitly count on the expiration of the tax cuts to make their projections.
On economics, McCain obviously doesn't understand enough to see the contradictions between his speeches and his proposals (or he's willing to say anything to get elected). Just this week he went from saying that Americans were better off after the Bush administration to saying that Americans were not better off. He cannot be trusted in any position that has any influence on economic policy.
Ignorance of Foreign Affairs
McCain has claimed foreign policy expertise, but he has proved that he is ignorant of large swaths of basic knowledge necessary to even begin making sense of foreign affairs. He is well known for repeatedly confusing Shia, Sunni, Al Queda, Al Queda in Iraq and any other groups that are in the news. He has said remarkably stupid and undiplomatic statements like "Bomb Iran". He attacked Obama for saying that the US should take action in attacking Al Queda in Pakistan if the Pakistanis don't cooperate - just before the US attacked Al Queda in Pakistan because the Pakistanis wouldn't cooperate. He claimed al-Sadr asked for a ceasefire when members of the al-Maliki government stated that they began the negotiations.
He's well known for his "100 year" gaffe, which he's now refined to "100 years after the war's over", which I'm sure is enormously reassuring to some but means absolutely nothing substantive. He's calling for more troops on the ground without any proposal as to where these troops would come from, other than that his proposals are for more of the same with some additional competence sprinkled on top like fairy dust. He supported "the surge", which looked like it was making gains for a few months but is now losing any effect it had - the situation in Iraq is reverting to the horrible state of last summer. McCain has offered some tepid criticism of Bush and Rumsfeld's conduct of the war over the years, but his current proposals look like warmed over and unimaginative generic blather.
Where McCain has made some truly radical statements is in relation to Russia and China. Late last year he called for Russia to be kicked out of the G-8 and India and Brazil (but not China) to be admitted. This is needlessly antagonistic to Russia, in general you don't want use leverage like that unless there is specific action that you want the other country to take. He has called for a "League of Democracies" to supplant the UN, a seriously silly proposal that misunderstands that the approval of the UN means something specifically because it is universal.
Once again, McCain doesn't know what he doesn't know. He has Robert Kagan, of all people, as a foreign policy adviser as well as Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Maj. Ralph Peters. I can see a way in which these advisers could be useful, as they have been wrong on every policy issue they have been involved in over the past seven years. They are perfect negative indicators. The idea that McCain is actually listening to these people and is willing to list them as advisers says more about his cluelessness than anything I could say.
Corruption and Campaign Funding
McCain has made a point of criticizing the campaign funding system and the influence of lobbyists and corporate contributions, yet his campaign staff is larded with lobbyists and he has a long history of corrupt behavior starting with the S&L scandals in the 1980s
McCain's national finance chairman and finance director were lobbyists for EADS, who coincidentally got a huge Pentagon contract. The specifications for the contract went through the Armed Services committee, of which McCain is the ranking member.
Many of the top spots in the McCain campaign are filled by lobbyists, including his campaign manager, Rick Davis; his chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr.; his top fund raising official, former congressman Tom Loeffler; senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon; and his Senate chief of staff, Mark Buse. According to Public Citizen McCain has more bundlers -- people who gather checks from networks of friends and associates -- from the lobbying community than any other presidential candidate from either party. By the group's current count, McCain has at least 59 federal lobbyists raising money for his campaign.
In 2001, he helped found the nonprofit Reform Institute to promote - surprise! - John McCain. It collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlimited donations from companies that lobbied the Senate commerce committee. McCain severed ties with the group in 2005 after complaining about "bad publicity". It's likely that if not for the publicity he would be accepting money from them to this day.
John McCain is well known in political circles for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws. Whether one agrees with the goals and methods of that legislation, it is rather shocking to see the co-author of the law finding loopholes to get around the provisions of that bill. For example, last year he supported legislation requiring higher reimbursement costs for candidate use of corporate jets. The law exempts jets owned by the candidates, their families or companies that they or their family control. What a surprise that shortly thereafter the began using his wife's jet extensively (in the process breaking a campaign pledge he had made).
So much for campaign finance reform. We see a pattern developing here with McCain, poor judgment followed by a mea culpa when his activities are brought to light. While apologizing for mistakes is admirable, it would be preferable to have a President who didn't make stupid mistakes in the first place, or at least not as many. He repeatedly intervenes with legislators and regulators to favor his contributors while trying to portray himself as having personal integrity. The only really surprising thing about him is that so many people, including those in the press, seem to believe him despite all the evidence to the contrary.
The evidence is clear: John McCain is just another corrupt politician, taking in money and handing out favors. It's bad enough that he does this as a Senator, it's totally unacceptable behavior for a President.
. . .
In summary, John McCain, in spite of all the opportunities he has had to educate himself about how the government works and the results of his actions as a legislator has failed to do even a minimal job of learning what one would expect from a Senator, let alone a President. He is so ignorant about basic issues that he is not even capable of discerning good advice from bad advice, and makes decisions based on ideology rather than facts. We have an example right now of the dangers of electing an ignorant person to the highest office in the land, we can't afford another four years of ignorance and blind ideology in the office of the President. McCain has stated that the current challenges facing the US do not allow for "on the job" training - very true, and very applicable to his candidacy. John McCain is not qualified to be President, and should be rejected by all thinking Americans. I only hope that still amounts to a majority of the voting population.
--
--
Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand. - Deep Throat
--
I blame it all on the Internet
- HankP's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Actually, it's not an analysis. It's a link-starved rant. A pile-on. A polemic. You've made your adjective-laden opinions clear, Hank, but your facts are kinda fuzzy. Some responses.
Unfortunately for McCain, since the gas tax holiday won't affect supply, it will have the effect of increasing demand and consumption, the exact opposite of what we should be encouraging at this time. Also, as a matter of policy short term tax increases or decreases are generally ineffective and increase transaction costs for both vendors and customers.
Your last sentence is nonsensical because adjusting to governmental decisions is a routine part of everyday business in this industry. McCain's intention was to give Americans--particularly poorer Americans because they pay the same rate at the pump as rich Americans--a small break at the pump. That's all. McCain doesn't claim anything beyond that. It's a small proposal intended to give folks some small savings. With gas prices already at $3.62/gallon (the cost of my last fill-up) and likely to exceed $4.00/gallon this summer, yes there will likely be a demand increase, but at the same time, those high prices have already had their effect on driving decisions. Even if two-thirds of the cut is passed on to consumers, a two-car family that uses 15 gallons a week per car will save $47 this summer, so the plan is as advertised. Personally, I'm agnostic about the proposal. I've used factcheck.org as a vehicle to expose Obama's untruths, so to be consistent, factcheck.org weighs in against McCain's proposal.
But the economics clown show doesn't stop there, his HOME proposal to allow homeowners to trade in their existing mortgage for an FHA loan essentially federalizes the mortgage market and makes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the loaners of last resort (and strengthens the widely held belief that the Fed and the Federal government will never let them fail).
FHA loans already already exist, so the mortgage market is already "federalized" to a fairly extensive degree, and your "last resort" claim is plain hyperbole. A summary of the plan:
Obama's plan is too vague to even know how it would work and how much it would cost. I guess you'll just have to trust him, untruths and all.
He has proposed instituting a second method of computing income taxes and giving taxpayers the choice of which system they wish to file under, increasing complexity and costing money.
So giving taxpayers the choice to file under a simpler option adds complexity? Certainly not to taxpayers. Unfortunately, you're only telling half the story because McCain would scrap the AMT, a singularly complex and unfair provision in the tax code. Obama's plan says nothing about the AMT and he doesn't explain how he will pay for his "Making Work Pay" tax break, which I might add, will do nothing to simplify taxes for ordinary Americans.
But the biggest and most blatant example of his ignorance is his prescription of lower taxes and unspecified budget cuts leading to ever higher deficits and debt and an ever lower value of the dollar.
If McCain is ignorant, then Obama is equally ignorant because both candidates' proposals will cause major deficit problems ((cite). Obama would spend an additional $287.0 billion a year and he has not explained how he would pay for it. His proposals to let some of the tax cuts expire and to let troops flee Iraq would only pay for a fraction. Also, you really should explain where you got that $400 billion additional spending number and, you know, a cite on where McCain is using OMB projections wouldn't kill you.
McCain has also twisted the meaning of words to an extent unknown to non-Republicans by calling the expiration of tax cuts a tax increase.
That is simply a stupid comment. It is a plain fact that when the current tax law expires, tax rates will increase. The sunset provision was built into the bill because that was all that could be done. Republicans couldn't get support for making tax cuts permanent because the Democrats held the majority in the Senate in 2001 and had the power of the filibuster in 2003. Once again, you tell only half the story.
As far as McCain's "ignorance" about economics goes, compared to whom? Compared to a credentialed economist, yes. But compared to Obama? No. McCain has 23 additional years experience dealing with economic issues on the national stage, so by comparison, I suggest that Obama is the more ignorant of the two. Obama hasn't worked in the private sector since 1985, and only then in a couple of entry-level jobs for a coupla years. So there you go with your half-stories again. Obama's major at Columbia was international relations, not exactly a degree with a heavy concentration of economics. The fact is that neither of the candidates have strong economic backgrounds. The fact is also that America's chief economist for that last 2½ decades, Alan Greenspan, endorsed McCain.
On foreign affairs, gaffes don't equal ignorance. The "bomb Iran" reference was a joke, and it was kinda funny the way it set liberals' hair on fire, not unlike Reagan's comment back in the 1980s. McCain's actual position on Iran is to work with other democracies and push for sanctions first. Military strikes would be a last resort, as they should be.
He attacked Obama for saying that the US should take action in attacking Al Queda in Pakistan if the Pakistanis don't cooperate - just before the US attacked Al Queda in Pakistan because the Pakistanis wouldn't cooperate.
Hank, you've given no evidence that Musharraf wasn't advised of the operation, nor have you shown that Musharraf didn't allow it to happen. The Pakistani military and U.S. special forces have worked together on prior operations. The problem remains that Obama said, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Pakistan has an arsenal of 60 atomic bombs, and if the president didn't approve of such operations, then we would be potentially alienating a population of 160 million Pakistanis who were otherwise on our side, not to mention bollixing our future chances of working with their military to hit al Qaeda targets.
He claimed al-Sadr asked for a ceasefire when members of the al-Maliki government stated that they began the negotiations.
You're gonna need a cite for this. In the Basra offensive, al Sadr was somewhere in Iran seeking a ceasefire, and the fact of the matter is that al Sadr laid out conditions but al Maliki did not agree to any of them. The Iraqi Army has since routed the Mahdi forces out of Basra.
He's well known for his "100 year" gaffe, which he's now refined to "100 years after the war's over", which I'm sure is enormously reassuring to some but means absolutely nothing substantive.
Your reference to the "100-year gaffe" is delusional, as factcheck.org has explained more than once.
He's calling for more troops on the ground without any proposal as to where these troops would come from, other than that his proposals are for more of the same with some additional competence sprinkled on top like fairy dust.
You're just plain wrong on the facts, Hank. McCain is not calling for more troops on the ground, but he did call for more troops and a counterinsurgency strategy well before Petraeus was promoted for the job. Your "fairy dust" nonsense is just that. Nonsense.
...the situation in Iraq is reverting to the horrible state of last summer.
More nonsense. Even with the Basra offensive last month and the current operation in Sadr City, civilian and military casualties are way below pre-September 2007 levels. Meantime, the political situation continues to improve. Your statement here alone is exactly why I said your post was a waste of time for conservatives to respond to, not to mention your idiocy that McCain offered "tepid criticism". John McCain bucked his party and his president, publicly criticizing the way Bush was administering this war. He did so as early as November 2003 and he continued his criticisms until Rumsfeld was out of a job. As far as bucking the party establishment goes, what exactly has Obama done?
Where McCain has made some truly radical statements is in relation to Russia and China. Late last year he called for Russia to be kicked out of the G-8 and India and Brazil (but not China) to be admitted. This is needlessly antagonistic to Russia, in general you don't want use leverage like that unless there is specific action that you want the other country to take. He has called for a "League of Democracies" to supplant the UN, a seriously silly proposal that misunderstands that the approval of the UN means something specifically because it is universal.
Your comments show a fairly obvious lack of understanding of what the G-8, is about. It used to be the G-7, which was a group of the largest industrialized democracies. Russia was later included because of its superpower status and because it showed the makings of an emergent democracy. Alas. Russia is no longer a superpower and it's far from being a nation that respects civil liberties and political rights. The next obvious choices for inclusion are India and perhaps Brazil.
As for people advising McCain on foreign policy, I think you're mixing up your Kagans. I'll grant you that I wouldn't have picked Bill Kristol, but Max Boot and Ralph Peters are capable.
I'll deal with your last section some other time.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
)but links are a supplement to an argument, not the argument itself. As to your points
- The gas tax "holiday" is lousy economics and pure pandering. 200 economists agree, and it's usually hard to get economists to agree to anything. Other states have tried it and guess what - prices only dropped about half of the cut (the other half being pocketed by the oil companies and distributors). Poor economics and emotional appeal - the perfect policy for a Republican.
- It's funny to hear a supposed conservative claim "it's federalized already, so what's a few hundred billion extra?" One of the very few areas in which a truly conservative approach makes sense, and you (and McCain) throw it away once again for the cheap appeal to the ignorant. Typically Republican - talk about fiscal responsibility but throw it away as soon as there's political points to be made. It's almost as if you guys have no actual principles at all.
- Let's summarize all the tax related issues into one over-arching point - over a hypothetical eight years he's proposing $3 - 5 trillion in specific tax cuts and $1.5 trillion in vague and unspecified cuts (the usual Republican "waste fraud and abuse" BS). That's from a baseline of $400 billion in annual deficits and no accounting for $12 billion a month in Iraq/Afghanistan spending. Complete fiscal irresponsibility and a plan that does nothing but devalue the dollar even faster than Bush did and lead to even larger financial imbalances than we suffer from now.
- al-Maliki's associates traveled to Iran to negotiate cease-fire
- We've been over this 100 year nonsense too many times. He said it, live with it. The fact that he predicated it on conditions that don't exist and that he has no way to get to makes no difference.
- Unbelievably lame. McCain hasn't called for more troops? From his own campaign website -
Bolster Troops on the Ground
A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America's ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.
- McCain criticized Bush? He's been all over the map, pandering and flip-flopping like a man with ambition and no core principles.
- You may think the war is going well, but casualties are up over the past few months and there's still no political settlement in sight. Keep clapping, though, it may bring al-tinq'urbal back to life.
- I know what the G-8 is, what you still haven't answered is why McCain would kick Russia out now, rather than using membership as leverage to get something we want. He obviously doesn't understand the first thing about foreign policy (or basic negotiation strategy, for that matter). More pandering to the neolithic right.
Nope, McCain is unqualified any rational way you look at it. I'll try to post about his flip-flopping, or maybe more on his personal corruption later.
After reading this over, I have to say I'm surprised. I would have thought you'd prefer the version without links, that at least lets your response make sense on a superficial level to the uninformed.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )On the FHA loans, there's little difference between McCain and Obama on converting ARMs to fixed mortgages, as you wrote. If McCain is "dangerously unqualified" on that basis, then so is your candidate.
On your "overarching points" on taxes, once again you become Half-Story Hank, focusing all your ire on McCain and his lack of specificity and ignoring Obama's own vast wasteland of vagueness. This is why I linked to the NYT article. If McCain's plan goes through, and you say it disqualifies him to be president because of increased deficits, then same goes for Obama if he gets everything he wants passed. You are employing a classic double standard, which to me is pretty unfair on your part, and it damages your own argument.
We've been over this 100 year nonsense too many times. He said it, live with it.
Yes, he said it, and you and your liberals friends keep distorting what McCain actually said. My heels are dug on in this, Hank, because Howard Dean is perpetuating the lie, and so is moveon.org. Thankfully, Obama got called on it enough times that he stopped doing it, but it's not stopping his surrogates.
On the al Maliki link, what's your point? What does it have to do with McCain?
Unbelievably lame. McCain hasn't called for more troops? From his own campaign website
Again, your point is...what? McCain called for troops from mid-2003 'til 2007, and guess what, Petraeus added 30,000 more troops. You wrote that McCain is calling for more troops, which is false. He's not. He is supporting the Petraeus drawdown to 130,000 and the "pause" for a month or two afterward. I'm pretty sure I know what the definition of "is" means. Do you?
Your Media Matters link takes the WA Post to task more so than McCain. McCain was in favor of removing Saddam and he supported the way major combat operations were conducted. When it emerged over the summer of 2003 that an insurgency was taking root and the coalition wasn't reacting well enough to it, he started pointing that out as early as August 2003, and in November 2003 started calling for a change in strategy. What you call "flip-flopping" is a mischaracterization of what he did. He assessed the post-war situation, and he started taking the administration to task for its mistakes and ineffectual actions. One example about how Media Matters was dishonest:
McCain didn't "back away" from his criticism because he never retracted what he said three days earlier. His statement on the war in Iraq was a reaffirmation of his support to continue the mission. Quote: "But I have never intended my concern that the American public be fully informed about the conduct and consequences of the war to indicate any lessening of my support for our mission there." McCain was clarifying his support for staying and succeeding in Iraq while still addressing his "concerns" over the way it was being prosecuted.
This is your typical Media Matters smeary half-lie. Do us a favor and use sources other than that Soros-funded attack machine.
I know what the G-8 is, what you still haven't answered is why McCain would kick Russia out now, rather than using membership as leverage to get something we want.
So Russia can be "needlessly antagonistic" as it wants, but the threat of removing it from the G-8 is too much for you to take? You're making no sense, Hank, particularly since the U.S. can't kick Russia out of the G-8. It takes a full consensus from the other G-8 nations. McCain is sending the message to Putin that we're going to be more critical about the way he's been doing things.
You may think the war is going well, but casualties are up over the past few months and there's still no political settlement in sight.
As it relates to "political settlement", more delusion, Hank. There's been plenty of political advancement. Read Crocker's testimony from last month. We haven't achieved all of our benchmarks, so the "are we there yet" liberals continue to ignore that this is a process and revert to demanding results, which is kinda funny because your party is otherwise so process-oriented.
I'll just ignore your final idiotic comment.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Where is Obama's projected deficit over eight years? Based on your own numbers, it's less than half of McCain's addition to the debt. I'll accept your point that McCain is twice as bad as far as the deficit/debt is concerned.
On the 100 year gaffe, get used to hearing it. McCain has never stated any plans for removing troops, period. If things are bad, we need to keep the troops there. If things get better, we need to keep the troops there. Either way, we need to keep the troops there. Keep spinning that until November. Please.
McCain's website clearly states, in the present tense, that John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. You can't spin that one away, anyone can go to his campaign web site and see that you are deliberately distorting his position. He is calling for more troops, now and in his administration.
I see that you don't like Media Matters, not surprising since it shows McCain as a waffler and flip flopper (soon to be the subject of a new diary). The man can't keep his stories straight.
As to the G-8, you have proven that you don't understand leverage or negotiation, especially since you admit that the US can't kick Russia out on its own. Just more red meat for the "anti-furriners" in your party.
BD, your history on Iraq is clear, you span the spectrum from "it's working" to "we may need to re-evaluate this in another six months or so".
Hey, enjoy McCain's apparent viability while you can. I look forward to the Republican party becoming the southern regional party they've been working towards for years.
Oh, and Bobby Jindal? The creationist? Please run him as VP, please.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )For example, on Bobby Jindal, please show us where Governor Jindal has said he is a creationist. Any old direct quote from Jindal--directly from a reputable news source--will do. I'm sure that bashing Jindal's Catholicism will be a real winner if McCain picks him. I'm guessing such a project will as successful as the Louisiana Democratic Party's smear campaign against him last time around.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )A weak, ID sort of one - that's what I read in the past. Does it matter? He could be a ID believer and a good administrator.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I did my own search and came across that site. I've tried to click through on several of their links but I can't get to the full context of what he said, and I don't trust that site because they're pretty paranoid about Christian Reconstructionists and about the threat of theocrats taking over the government. There's lots of insinuendo and assertions that Jindal's speaking in "code", but little in the way of direct quotes that explain his positions.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Only if he's fool enough to try to push that nonsense in schools. Otherwise, no, it's just the usual pandering.
--Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )McCain has never stated any plans for removing troops, period.
Your statement is irrelevent to his 100-year comments because it has nothing to do with the distortions and lies from Obama & Co. of what McCain actually said about a future troop presence in Iraq. Obama and his people could have taken the tack that McCain wasn't specific enough about when and how we would arrive at that pacified state, but you and your liberal friends didn't go that way, choosing instead cheap and sleazy dishonesty. If you want to be tedious about it by continuing to trot out this crap, then I'll be just as tedious in calling this dishonesty for what it is. Count on it.
On Jack Keane, it should have been clear to you that McCain's webpage is out of date. The same page also shows that McCain has a proposal to "implement a new counterinsurgency strategy". The strategy has been implemented for the last 15 months. McCain supports the Petraeus plan and his recommendations on troop levels, In his support of the current counterinsurgency strategy, McCain is also supporting the idea that troop levels are conditional to the situation on the ground, as it should be. Obama's 16-month cut-and-run plan is an outright rejection of the current strategy.
I see that you don't like Media Matters, not surprising since it shows McCain as a waffler and flip flopper (soon to be the subject of a new diary).
I don't like Media Matters because of the dishonest way they "cover" their political adversaries. My prior example...you know, the one that proved their dishonesty, should have made that obvious to you. Alas.
As to the G-8, you have proven that you don't understand leverage or negotiation, especially since you admit that the US can't kick Russia out on its own.
No, it shows that you don't understand that McCain was sending a message to Putin, one of apparently many un-understandings your Hard Left ideology fails to comprehend.
BD, your history on Iraq is clear, you span the spectrum from "it's working" to "we may need to re-evaluate this in another six months or so".
That is a complete distortion and mischaracterization. I really thought you were above that kind of tripe, Hank. Since January 2007, before the implementation of the COIN plan, I said I would reserve judgment until the end of the year to see how it would work. That is not "another six months or so," and it is a blatant falsehood that you would say that. Quote: "The Petraeus plan looks to be one of the last and best tries. If we've made no discernible progress by this November, I may just put myself in the defeatist camp and call for a phased drawdown. But not now, and not with this plan." Shortly after I wrote that, I revised the date to December.
Since that time, I consistently stated tens of times that I would give the strategy 'til year end. As late as last December, I said that the plan "appears to be bearing fruit, but a lot needs to happen politically." In early January, I concluded that enough discernible progress was being made to continue the plan. I haven't said "we are winning" or "we've turned the corner" or "let's wait another six months". Since last January, I have said on a few occasions that the strategy is working because I believe there is enough evidence to support that contention, but I've also agreed with Petraeus-Crocker that the situation remains fragile.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I went ahead and pulled it down.
"The agreement will not establish permanent bases in Iraq, and we anticipate it will expressly forswear them." (emph in original.)
What do you think the over/under is on "expressly foreswear"ing the entire strategic value of the war?
I read Ambassador Crocker's 2007 testimony, and I was struck by how indistinguishable the two sounded -- the only difference was that by 2008, domestic political pressures forced Crocker to acknowledge that maybe we might leave someday.
Certainly Crocker's endorsement of the IMF's 2007 prediction of 7% growth was totally wrong -- Iraq is sporting an anemic 2.6% growth rate. Of course, this is consistent overall with the pattern of seeing things as about three times as large as they are.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )2006 elections
Obama endorsed not the Democratic candidate for Connecticut's senate seat, but rather the candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. He bucked his party and backed a winner!
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )My understanding is that Obama endorsed the Democratic nominee for Connecticut's Senate race (link):
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I always feel bad leaving you alone here to defend "our side", heh. I just wish I had the time (inclination?) to help out more.
--Envy was once considered to be one of the deadly sins before it became one of the most admired virtues under its new name, social justice. --Thomas Sowell
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )MCCAIN, REPUBLICAN FRONTRUNNER, UNCHALLENGED FOR OVER THREE MONTHS.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )More like Day 3. BTW, this same link was in my above comment.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )FACTCHECK.ORG BREAKS FREE AFTER 94-DAY ORDEAL.
SAYS, "WE'LL CONTINUE TO FACTCHECK JOHN MCCAIN AS LONG AS HE MAKES THE SAME ERROR AS A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE."
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )WE WILL BE UPDATING YOU ON FACTCHECK.ORG'S ONGOING ORDEAL AS OPEN THREADS PERMIT.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's Day Zero for McCain (not including the promised follow-up) and Day Thirteen for Obama. Your hostage thesis has crashed and burned, PM.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...that the three month drought was coincidence, rather than design. But man, that was a long time. Also, please note that May 13th comes after May 12th.
But, um, it's day 8 for Obama, I think.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )b/c I thought the postings were inspired. Oh well.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and sought to constrain trade (the Obama and Clinton plan) was a guy named Hoover.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
)anyone? Anyone? Massive government spending.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )until a really big war began.
The really big war is certainly a possibility.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Balderdash.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )plans (to the extent they are coherent) and point out the best one in a way I can understand. Thanks.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
)here, so I'll go through the points they list.
Clinton:
Use a private-sector auction of large mortgage pools to help unfreeze our struggling mortgage market, have the Federal Housing Administration or a similar government entity stand ready to purchase, restructure, and resell underwater mortgages if a private-sector auction does not achieve the type of broad-based restructuring our housing market needs - The private sector auction isn't likely because the discount that buyers would require to take the mortgages on is greater than the mortgage holders are willing to give up. The securitization of mortgages is dead right now, and it will be a while before that market revives (and it will likely never recover fully). That leaves the FHA. I don't have a problem with FHA loans in general, but I'd be very concerned if they lowered standards just to take on a bunch of these garbage mortgages. If they force investors to write off enough to get close to market value it might work out OK, but if the net result is a seriously underwater loan it won't. The problem is letting them force investors, that will be a nightmare to design and implement. This is a problem with all of the candidates proposals in this area.
A High-Level Emergency Working Group on Foreclosures to Investigate How to Achieve Broad Restructuring of At-Risk Mortgages - Another commission. Big deal.
Clarifying Legal Liability for Mortgage Servicers to Help Unfreeze the Mortgage Market - Could be good or bad, depending on how it's done.
A New Housing Stimulus Package With at Least $30 Billion for States and Localities to Fight Concentrated Foreclosures - Not sure how much this would help, depends on exactly what it does.
A foreclosure moratorium of at least 90 days on subprime, owner-occupied homes - Not a bad idea as far as giving some breathing room, but won't change anything by itself.
Freeze the monthly rate on subprime adjustable rate mortgages - A horrible idea, unless you want to make sure that no one ever issues subprime mortgages ever again.
Obama:
Create new F.H.A. program to make it easier to convert subprime loans to fixed-rate, 30-year loans; create a fund to help people avoid foreclosures; require better disclosure from lenders - The first idea is OK if the lenders can be persuaded into reasonable writeoff, otherwise it won't do anything. The second is a lousy idea, I can see the articles about millionaires being bailed out already. The third is a good idea but unless they also mandate more intelligent home buyers I'm not sure how much good it will do.
Create a new Federal Housing Administration program to “provide meaningful incentives for lenders to buy or refinance existing mortgages and to convert them into stable 30-year fixed mortgages - Depends on the details, and requires the cooperation of the mortgage investors.
Extend mortgage credit to taxpayers who do not itemize, modeled on a deduction “now predominantly used by high-income itemizers.” - Nice tax break for non-itemizers, don't think it will affect the overall problem though.
Set tougher penalties for fraudulent brokers and lenders. Create a fund — partly paid for by “increased penalties on lenders who act irresponsibly” — to help people avoid foreclosures. - Nice idea, but unless they force mortgage originators to carry the mortgages on their books I'm not sure it will make any difference.
Require better disclosure from lenders. Create a standardized scoring system to quantify the borrower’s obligation. - Nice, but it won't really affect anything.
Work to eliminate law “that prevents bankruptcy courts from modifying an individual’s mortgage payments. - This is actually the most effective suggestion, it's the only thing that will put real pressure on the mortgage lenders to renegotiate before a bankruptcy court judge forces it on them.
McCain:
Initially opposed large-scale federal assistance, but more recently called for the government to help qualified homeowners with subprime mortgages refinance and get federally guaranteed 30-year mortgages; opposes lower down payment on F.H.A. mortgages; Justice Department should investigate lenders - On the first item I have the same concerns as mentioned above, the second item is a good idea, the third is just noise.
Eligible homeowners can apply to Federal Housing Administration to replace their existing “burdensome” mortgages for a F.H.A.-guaranteed “manageable loan that reflects their home’s market value. ... Homeowners would end up with a 30-year mortgage and an equity stake in their home. The new lender would receive a federal guarantee of the mortgage. And the taxpayer gets a benefit if the sale value ever recovers.” - How exactly is this to happen? Will the FHA be able to unilaterally abrogate an existing mortgage? It's one thing if someone's declared bankruptcy, but this appears to be open to anyone with no definition of "burdensome" or "manageable". I just don't see how it's practical, if it's negotiated with the existing lender it's the same as Clinton or Obama, if not (as is implied) it gives the FHA too much power and will lead to unbelievable numbers of lawsuits.
Form a mortgage abuse task force at the Justice Department to investigate abusive lending practices. - Yeah, that's nice. Doesn't mean anything.
Convene meetings with accounting professionals and top mortgage lenders. Says lenders should work together “to provide maximum support and help to their cash-strapped but credit worthy customers.” - Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows everywhere ...
Create “greater transparency in the lending process.” - Yeah, that's nice. Nothing to see here.
Says any federal assistance for borrowers “must be temporary” and “should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes.” - Eh, tough to implement.
Adopt policies to ensure that homeowners “provide a responsible down payment of equity at the initial purchase of a home.” Opposes reducing the down payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration mortgages; believes the requirement should be increased “as conditions allow.” - I don't think that down payments should be lowered or raised on FHA loans, that hasn't really been a problem until loans started getting securitized.
. . .
I should point out that most of these proposals are so vague that it's tough to analyze them in detail, and how well or poorly they will work depends a lot on the specific implementation. The single most effective thing they could do would be to require mortgage originators to retain a share of the mortgages they sell, enough so that they face serious financial loss if they start writing crappy loans. They should also apply a similar condition on banks and financial firms that package and sell securities of all kinds. Don't expect to hear anything like that because the mortgage, banking and financial interests would scream like stuck pigs.
EDIT: I should point out that one reason that investment banks are unlikely to accept writedowns is that the Fed is currently letting them swap crappy mortgage securities for high quality bonds "temporarily". Unless that ends I doubt they'd be willing to write down the values of those securities.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"The single most effective thing they could do would be to require mortgage originators to retain a share of the mortgages they sell, enough so that they face serious financial loss if they start writing crappy loans. They should also apply a similar condition on banks and financial firms that package and sell securities of all kinds."
I'll go out on a limb here and say that you're badly mis-analyzing the problem in the same manner as the farmer who notes that his cows are gone and decides he needs to close the barn door.
A) Much as you might imagine otherwise, both the originators and securitizers of this paper have taken rather...ahem... significant losses based on said crappy loans (and crappy many were, no doubt.)
B) But let's assume that they actually realized that the crappy paper was going to be crappy at the time and funded it anyway. Would a residual interest in the loans have prevented this? No, because there were already residual interests built in. The equity tranches (that is, the first -loss junk at the bottom) were often held by said same originators and securitizers. Further, they generally had an interest in some of the credit enhancements, such as over-collateralization and buy-back-out-of-the-pool provisions. They had no interest in seeing defaults even when the paper was sold to third parties. You are getting close to the prey, but you're still barking up the wrong tree.
--The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I thought most of them who didn't put their own money into the real estate market did Just Fine, Thanks.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )mortgage originators (i.e., the mortgage companies that spring up like toadstools in a loose money environment) couldn't care less how crappy the loans are as long as they can package them and sell them to investors. I've worked with mortgage companies, I've seen it myself. The only residual interest they have is their reputation, and that's not an issue during a bubble when fools and their money ... well, you know the rest.
As far as the big investment banks that packaged more elaborate versions of mortgage loan vehicles, it seems that the Fed stands ready to bail them out, arrange buyouts and loan Treasuries against crappy paper. What's their downside again?
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If so, that's another highly regulated area if the fund or CDO purchaser (a bank, e.g.) is federally insured. I don't know what investment banks do with this stuff, but real banks have severe restrictions on what they can buy, what kind of due diligence has to be performed, what %age of their investments can be held as CMOs, and so forth. And those rules are enforced by the dreaded bank examiners, not political candidates or the courts.
I don't know what you mean by a "mortgage company". If you mean a broker, half of them are crooks, but they don't originate loans except bridges, or the occasional parking loan to inflate a subprime borrower's net worth for sixty days. And I'm not aware of any of those entities originating loans and then aggregating and selling a bunch of them. Who specifically are you talking about? I'm talking about companies like, say, US Financial.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and they sure as hell originate mortgages if you mean that they work directly with the borrower, assemble the paperwork, and sell the loans to investors. I'm not familiar with the regulations that govern them, but I can tell you from personal experience that they have a very flexible relationship with the truth. Who do you think tells home buyers to overstate their income, overstate their assets and understate their liabilities? Who do you think was putting people into NINJA loans (no income, no job, no assets)? You may not consider them the "originators", but the home buyer sure did.
And as long as house prices were going up, none of the "regulated" firms downstream were interested in looking too closely at what they were doing. One of the VPs told me (seven years ago) "Oh, we can sell any mortgage. There's never a lack of investors looking for mortgages to buy. That's the beauty of this business, we never have any trouble selling them, and the worse they are the more we make on them." They preferred making crazy subprime loans to any other kind, they'd even give cash back to borrowers who'd sign up for the more exotic products. Interest only, negative amortization, that was their bread and butter.
I can't disclose the names of the companies that I worked with, because I don't disclose client information. Let's just say I don't work with them anymore, not after I figured out what they were all about. I heard that there was some legal troubles for one of them, but they're still in business. They were also the fastest growing business I ever worked with, I took their computer systems from four people on two PCs in one office to 200 employees in 8 offices across the Western US in about two years.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Thank you for the detailed response, to which I'll respond in my typically disorganized fashion.
But first, an important factual point: few, if any, sub-prime borrowers are victims of anything but their own hopes and dreams. All of the information they needed to assess the risks of defaults was available to them, and the great majority of them had already been rejected by mainstream, brick-and-mortar banks as risky borrowers. That message could not have been clearer to anyone who cared to listen.
The plight of a family losing its home is always heart-rending, but that doesn't mean the mantle of victimhood should descend upon mortgage defaulters. If there is a widescale bailout, it should be done for the presumed benefit of the economy as a whole (like the Bear Stearns guarantee supposedly was), not because the individual borrowers somehow deserve it.
That said, I'll respond to your points in an admittedly random way without particular attribution to a given candidate, but there's method to my madness. On this particular issue, I see little difference between McCain's position and that of the two Dem candidates, and like you, I think most of their suggestions are either foolish or at best, useless. Here goes, leaving out your points that I completely agree with:
I agree with your comments. Big banks didn't want these borrowers in the first place; that's what sent them to mortgage brokers for sub-prime rates. Why would anyone want to buy them now unless they were pooled with a high percentage of low-risk loans, which would defeat the whole purpose of the exercise?
If a borrower can't understand his/her obligations to repay the loan, they shouldn't be borrowing money in the first place. One thing that would help here, though, would be to ban mortgage brokers from having any affiliation or contact with the appraisers until the lender makes a decision on the loan.
What the hee does that mean? Sounds like an anti-matter form of redlining: "OK, everyone living in this part of the city can't be foreclosed on, but if you're one block over, tough."
Even I can figure out how to restructure "at-risk" (presumably meaning in default) residential mortgages: lower the monthly payments for homeowners who are still employed, and have the government assume or guarantee the loans for those who aren't, then let the homeowners remain in default without foreclosure until they can resume payments. Maybe they could also convert 15-year mortgages to 30-years, and 30's to 45's (may as well create a new residential mortgage category while they're waving magic wands.)
"Clarifying" here presumably means "pinning the tail on." What's a "servicer" in this context - a purchaser or assignee of the original mortgage loan? If so, it would be reasonable to explore the foreclosure policies, unofficial grace periods, loan renegotiation options etc. that were the custom and practice at the original bank, then enforce those on any entity that subsequently acquires the mortgage. AFA "legal liability", to whom? Tough collection practices by a loan servicer isn't a defense in a state foreclosure action, and the Fed Govt. has serious limits on the degree to which it can alter state foreclosure law.
The last thing any bank wants to do in this market is to foreclose, particularly in states like California with non-recourse or anti-deficiency laws. Safe to assume they've figured this one out without help from the govt.
This suggests McCain knows little or nothing about TIL (strange for a former S&L default expert %^); or maybe it's just a sound bite.
To what extent do you think speculators are defaulting? I know of some, but not enough to be a significant cause of the problems. Most of the speculation here in Hawaii's hugely inflated market is at the high-end, and those borrowers just make capital calls to their LP or LLC partners and kick out anyone who can't meet the call.
A red herring. I don't know of a single instance where someone defaulted on a loan because a material term of the loan was not disclosed. It's all there, but no one reads it. Federal laws mandate plain English - no one reads that. Risks are disclosed w/r/t the possible monthly payment hikes in ARMs; no one who bought back then cared. They may not have fully appreciated what might happen, but that was due to optimism and wishful thinking, not nondisclosures.
Earth to Hil: 99% of the fraud is committed by the mortgage brokers, not the lending institutions. These outfits have no assets, and didn't post anything more than a nominal bond before hanging out their signs. Their principals will be gone from the jurisdiction before you can file an action. And their sins most often were limited to charging outrageous loan origination fees, and sometimes helping the occasional borrower who is willing to actively defraud the brick-and-mortar banks that ended up making the brokered loans. You can't even get back the overcharges because that money's long gone, much of it in commissions to twenty-somethings who were brokering loans without a license. Even if you were able to force a refund of the overcharges, that money would belong to the borrowers, not the govt.
In sum, I don't think any of these ideas will do anything significant. We need an analysis and some credible projections regarding the magnitude of the problem and its present and likely future effects on the economy before any consideration is justified w/r/t a bailout of those people unwise enough to bet on a permanent rise in the housing market, ARMs that actually result in lower interest rates, continuous raises that equal or beat the COLA, and so forth. If nothing else, fairness to the great majority of people who are sacrificing to continue to make their mortgage payments demands that.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I can tell you from painful personal experience as an educator that maybe 25% of people are capable of seriously handling a complex financial transaction with an antagonistic partner.
Maybe.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the antagonism part, I mean.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )They were designed to blow up on their borrowers; the business plan revolved around foreclosures.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I spent five years working (in a non-mortgage subsidiary) for a large sub-prime lender; I've seen the business model from the inside and it doesn't have the slightest thing to do with foreclosures being desirable in any way. Unless, by "many", you mean "some small percentage of the actual number originated", you are incorrect.
LGD (loss given default) for old-fashioned high LTV loans can go to 50% (that's how much you're eating after recoveries), never mind the 100% LTV stuff that was done recently (and in bubble markets, no less, so that the 100% was optimistic.)
There was plenty of stupidity and greed on display in that market, but not much of the particular sort you're postulating.
But don't take my word for it, read up here. The owners can hardly be called to task for being conservative in any political sense. I don't always agree with them, but there's a wealth of knowledge to be had nonetheless.
--The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and I've reviewed hundreds of subprime brokered residential mortgage loan files in the past year or so. Every loan was essentially plain-vanilla. And residential mortgages are pretty simple and highly regulated instruments. Exactly how would you design one to blow up?
Easily half of the mortgage brokers doing business at the heart of the boom were crooks, but they would receive no benefit from a subsequent default and repo because they are paid off and are out of the transaction the moment the mortgage loan closes and title is transferred; in fact, they're always paid out of escrow. So the brokers have nothing to gain or lose w/r/t whether mortgage payments are made or missed six months or a year later.
The only other party to the transaction is the lending bank, and I seriously doubt any bank loans money to people with the intent that they will default. The bank doesn't make any money on a foreclosure; at best, the loan balance and collection fees are paid off, with the remainder going to the mortgagor. States like California don't even let banks collect from the individual borrowers if the foreclosure sale price doesn't cover the loan balance. So what's the deal?
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...that banks honestly expected to collect on loans where the payments leapt by 50% after 5 years? When the folks getting them were already at 30-50% of household earnings?
Either the business plan was, in fact, to collect on the equity of the house after 5 years, or the banks were systematically so stupid that any employee or executive at them should be immediately banned from approaching a power tool.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The banks that ended up holding these loans did not loan money expecting defaults. That's so basic a rule of banking that even I know it. If you don't believe that, you're looking way too hard for a bad guy/evil corp/govt. conspiracy.
The banks didn't know that ATMs would rise to the levels that some did, obviously. The possibility of those increases, and the inability to predict them at the time ARM loans are made, is fully disclosed to the borrower in every ARM loan package I've ever seen. If someone is absolutely determined to buy a house and has been turned down by a mainstream bank, signing onto either a riskier or an inherently more costly loan package by definition is the only way left to go. The risk here, of course, is that of a default. There's really no mystery here; if there's a bad guy, it's the mortgage broker who robs subprime borrowers directly out of escrow, charges commissions for unlicensed brokers, hugely inflates closing costs, uses a captive appraiser to fake values, and so forth. As I said above, good luck catching those people and making them pay.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...were anything other than a speculative vehicle for default fishing.
Not to mention the negative amortization loans.
The alternative is too ghastly to contemplate. I can live with bank officers being unethical and rather brutal. The idea that they are systematically stupid enough not to expect foreclosures on massive numbers of interest-only loans is terrifying.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )if we were to take as given the fact that bank officers were this utterly stupid, the Federal Government has an obligation to regulate the industry to within an inch of its existence, and probably nationalize it. Our free market models require their actors to act at least vaguely in their own interest -- once that goes away, there's no benefit whatsoever in a market system.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Link:
and this:
The era of power politics is over. The American President decides and the matter is closed. As with George W. Bush before him, this attitude shall result in America writing checks we cannot cash.
I would flip that trade around. We insist that Georgia's borders be respected and we cancel that Central European missile facility.
Georgia as a member of NATO? I need to think on that before I opine.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
)is you don't understand how NATO works. As for missile defense, which NATO supported btw, that was a decision made by three different countries.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...just step away from this one. It's not worth responding to.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
)to throw in some character assassination or use the word "untruth" if that will make it easier for you.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If you can demonstrate untruths on McCain's part, then by all means, go for it. I've made my case about Obama's untruths, and unlike your post, I've provided links to back up my contentions.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )all thise blogs were looking kind of 'samey' anyway and
you'll only put your back out if you stoop that low.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I usually refrain from pointing out hypocrisy, but... what?!?! Bird Dog, of the four separate "Lying Obama" diaries, says this? About a diary that is far more substantive, policy-focused and discussion-worthy than any of those?
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But substantive policy-focused discussion is not the GOP way when it comes to elections. Better to get out that dog whistle and blow. And, when it comes to the Forvm, blow it repeatedly. Which blows.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )of the Democrats, they are far better at playing cards.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )before attempting the kind of backflips that on the one hand labels Democrats as too wonkish, and on the other claims Democrats don't discuss policy?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )substantive policy. I just thought you should know.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'll respond to Hank, but it'll take awhile.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"Not gonna talk about it" seems to be the preferred Republican retort when partisan opponents seek to put them on defense.
It's worked so far for McCain with respect to Hagee and 100 years in Iraq and his finances and so on.
Worked pretty well for GWB in 2000 (cocaine use, drunk driving, TANG) and for large swathes of his presidency (on SS privatization he wasn't gonna negotiate with himself; on most security issues he claims Nat'l Security; on Libby it was pending litigation; on energy policy it was Exec privilege).
Bird Dog isn't explicit about why conservatives are supposed to steer clear of this, but Hankp made it easy to do so with his stridency (which, well let's just say this isn't laden with as many handcut partisianisms as much of what is accepted as analysis here) and the dearth of supporting links.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the wise move for any extremist ultra-partisan Republican is to just avoid this one, since there's no defense of McCain's horrible ideology, inept past, laughable staff, and dangerous proposals.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Moderate conservative is where I am.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )He's so much more important to our country's future than McCain's fiscal fantasies.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )