I realized that I had promised to, in a future post, discuss what led to AIG's failure. The news over the past couple days has given me a chance to revisit the problems that led to AIG's bailout.
AIG, formerly the world's largest insurer, had more problems than its own bad mortgage investments. Like Lloyd's of London, who are famous for insuring things like J-Lo's legs or whatever because they will insure anything, for the right price, AIG began finding new products to insure. They had entered into a number of credit default swaps (CDSs), which are, like, complicated and stuff, but so far as I can tell, they involve insuring companies against losses on investments. Let's say I have a bond (AKA, an IOU) worth $1 million from Bear Stearns, and I begin to doubt if I'm ever going to get my money back. So I call up my buddies at AIG, who, like any good casino that benefits off of more bets, are desperate to find another insurance policy to sell. They will, in exchange for premiums, promise to, for example, guaranteeing that they will give me $700,000 if my bond/IOU becomes worthless.
So, in effect, AIG was doubly exposed to the subprime mortgage crisis. In addition to their own direct ownership of bad investments, they were on the hook for lots of insurance claims, like my fictional $700,000. If AIG goes out of business, I and everyone else who has a similar agreement gets screwed, which the government would like to avoid because EVERYONE has similar agreements with the giant insurer. And that, in a nutshell, is how a company goes from being one of the 30 companies chosen to make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average to selling 85% of itself to the government to keep from disappearing.
What is it that brought AIG to mind today? House Republicans' response to the Paulson plan (previously discussed before John McCain read it!) was a plan in which the Treasury would sell insurance to the banks to protect them from losses on mortgate investments. The House Republic plan is.... wait for it.... Credit Default Swaps! The very thing that killed one of the 30 strongest companies on Wall Street! THAT'S THEIR PLAN!!!
!!!!!
Oh, actually, there is a little more to their plan. They are also pushing for an end to an accounting practice called "mark-to-market". This rule requires that a company count an asset (say, a package of mortgages) to have whatever value it would currently fetch on the open market. This is in contast to how things were accounted for before this rule, which basically let companies assign whatever value they wanted to an asset. Because they could, before mark-to-market, assign whatever value they wanted, they would sometimes LIE (gasp!) by inflating the apparent value of investments in order to make their bottom lines look better. In other words, mark-to-market keeps banks from lying, so Republicans want to get rid of it.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is their plan to solving the financial crisis; credit default swaps, and letting banks lie.
How is it people are still wondering if it's time to let the Democrats have a chance for a while?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Please Let This Be True!
Politico's Jonathan Martin, their expert on the Republican side of things, reported the following yesterday:
I'm going to be so bummed if this isn't true and/or released.
Of concern to McCain's campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin's interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.The report is backed up by Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, who writes:
The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.
After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.
There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.
And the worst may be yet to come for Palin; sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing.Oh sweet lord, please let CBS release the video! They'd, I mean, they'd have to get rid of her, right? A sophomore in high school could talk about more cases than that! Pro-life folk like to talk about Dred Scott. Ms. "no abortion for rape victims" couldn't even come up with that one?
I'm going to be so bummed if this isn't true and/or released.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Senate Update
Though not as important as the presidential election, polls in the various Senate races are beginning to point to the possibility of 60* Democratic Senators in January. This would dramatically change the way laws are passed in the Congress for the next two years, which I'll go over in the rest of this paragraph. The Speaker of the House can more or less call for a vote whenever she wants, because through her control of the Rules Committee, she can end debate and force a vote. All it takes is the Speaker and half of the remaining 434 Representatives to get a bill passed in the lower house. In the Senate, each and every Senator can talk as long as he or she wants before a bill is voted on, unless 60 Senators vote for cloture, meaning an end to the debate. If fewer than 60 vote to end debate, the opposing minority (i.e., the Republicans, these days) can go on talking all day and all night long, keeping a vote from being held. This is a filibuster. This system is meant to to allow a minorty party to prevent a thin majority from completely running roughshod over the process.
For example, let's assume a President Obama (be still my heart!) was dealing with the Senate as currently composed, with 51* Dems and 49 Republicans, on the issue of Obama's health care proposal (btw, being in the health field, I do feel obligated to talk about the candidates' health care reform proposals, which are radically different both from each other and from the current system. So stay tuned!). If the 51 Democrats were for it and the 49 Republicans were against it, it wouldn't pass, because Obama and his allies could not get the 60 votes needed to get cloture, ending debate and allowing the vote to occur.
In the current election, 37 Dems, 26 Republicans and the 2 Independents do not have to run for re-election this year, while 12 Democratic and 23 Republican seats are up; there's so many more Republican seats up because the Democrats got their asses handed to them in '02, in the lead-up to the Iraq war. If the Democrats win in 21 of these 35 seats, they would then have the magic 60, meaning that they could push through any bill they wanted without any Republican input at all.
Based on the polling-analysis model over at fivethirtyeight.com, the 12 Democratic seats up for election are all safe, meaning they need to win 9 currently-Republican seats to reach 60. Picking up seats in Virginia and New Mexico seems to be a mortal lock. Colorado, New Hampshire and Alaska (depending largely on the federal corruption trial of Ted Stevens) are looking good. Oregon and North Carolina currently appear to be 50-50. And Republican seats in Minnesota, Missippi and Kentucky are vulnerable. fivethirtyeight's model calculates, at present, about a 1 in 6 chance that the Democrats will reach 60. Given Obama's massive voter registration and GOTV (get out the vote) efforts, and possible coattails if his poll numbers remain as strong as they are, I'd put the odds a bit better than that.
So, long story short, the fate of Obama's health care plan might depend on Al Franken.
*Actually, right now there's 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans in the Senate, along with 2 Independents, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who are for all intents and purposes Democrats. Even if Lieberman were to break from the Democratic Party more fully than he has, he still is, in terms of domestic policy at least, in line with the Dems and would often be a reliable vote for cloture.
For example, let's assume a President Obama (be still my heart!) was dealing with the Senate as currently composed, with 51* Dems and 49 Republicans, on the issue of Obama's health care proposal (btw, being in the health field, I do feel obligated to talk about the candidates' health care reform proposals, which are radically different both from each other and from the current system. So stay tuned!). If the 51 Democrats were for it and the 49 Republicans were against it, it wouldn't pass, because Obama and his allies could not get the 60 votes needed to get cloture, ending debate and allowing the vote to occur.
In the current election, 37 Dems, 26 Republicans and the 2 Independents do not have to run for re-election this year, while 12 Democratic and 23 Republican seats are up; there's so many more Republican seats up because the Democrats got their asses handed to them in '02, in the lead-up to the Iraq war. If the Democrats win in 21 of these 35 seats, they would then have the magic 60, meaning that they could push through any bill they wanted without any Republican input at all.
Based on the polling-analysis model over at fivethirtyeight.com, the 12 Democratic seats up for election are all safe, meaning they need to win 9 currently-Republican seats to reach 60. Picking up seats in Virginia and New Mexico seems to be a mortal lock. Colorado, New Hampshire and Alaska (depending largely on the federal corruption trial of Ted Stevens) are looking good. Oregon and North Carolina currently appear to be 50-50. And Republican seats in Minnesota, Missippi and Kentucky are vulnerable. fivethirtyeight's model calculates, at present, about a 1 in 6 chance that the Democrats will reach 60. Given Obama's massive voter registration and GOTV (get out the vote) efforts, and possible coattails if his poll numbers remain as strong as they are, I'd put the odds a bit better than that.
So, long story short, the fate of Obama's health care plan might depend on Al Franken.
*Actually, right now there's 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans in the Senate, along with 2 Independents, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who are for all intents and purposes Democrats. Even if Lieberman were to break from the Democratic Party more fully than he has, he still is, in terms of domestic policy at least, in line with the Dems and would often be a reliable vote for cloture.
The Debate, Two Days Out
With a couple days to reflect back on the debate, as well as the live-blog, some thoughts:
First off, in re-reading the debate post, some of my responses needed to include more about what I was responding to. If I may get a little racial, some of my comments were like an audience at, say, Barbershop: "There you go!", "mhmm", "that's right!". I don't know, is that what our African American brethren say in movie theaters? It's what I imagine they do.
In 1980, before his debates with Jimmy Carter, lots of voters thought Reagan was a right-wing nutjob. Which, of course, he was. But at the debates he managed to convince people that he had sufficient temperament and knowledge for the job. At Friday's debate, Obama met this same threshold. While he probably did, on balance, lose the 2nd half of the debate after the focus switched to foreign policy, he managed to make himself at least on the same level as John McCain. After the debates in 1980, a close race became a bowout after the "new" candidate established himself as qualified and mainstream. I'm cautiously optimistic that we might be heading for a similar scenario now. Obama had a 3 point jump today in the Gallup tracking poll, which is a three-day rolling average of telephone polls. So a 3 point, one-day jump means that Obama's one-day lead over McCain in phone surveys done yesterday (after the debate) was 9 points (!!!) higher than his lead over McCain on Wednesday, the day which fell out of the 3-day average.
I think I might've explained the Gallup thing rather poorly... Take home message, Obama's ahead by much more today than he was before the debate and McCain's pseudo-suspension.
A preview of the VP debate preview: expectations for Sarah Palin are just about as low as they could possibly be, so it wouldn't take much for her to declare "victory".
First off, in re-reading the debate post, some of my responses needed to include more about what I was responding to. If I may get a little racial, some of my comments were like an audience at, say, Barbershop: "There you go!", "mhmm", "that's right!". I don't know, is that what our African American brethren say in movie theaters? It's what I imagine they do.
In 1980, before his debates with Jimmy Carter, lots of voters thought Reagan was a right-wing nutjob. Which, of course, he was. But at the debates he managed to convince people that he had sufficient temperament and knowledge for the job. At Friday's debate, Obama met this same threshold. While he probably did, on balance, lose the 2nd half of the debate after the focus switched to foreign policy, he managed to make himself at least on the same level as John McCain. After the debates in 1980, a close race became a bowout after the "new" candidate established himself as qualified and mainstream. I'm cautiously optimistic that we might be heading for a similar scenario now. Obama had a 3 point jump today in the Gallup tracking poll, which is a three-day rolling average of telephone polls. So a 3 point, one-day jump means that Obama's one-day lead over McCain in phone surveys done yesterday (after the debate) was 9 points (!!!) higher than his lead over McCain on Wednesday, the day which fell out of the 3-day average.
I think I might've explained the Gallup thing rather poorly... Take home message, Obama's ahead by much more today than he was before the debate and McCain's pseudo-suspension.
A preview of the VP debate preview: expectations for Sarah Palin are just about as low as they could possibly be, so it wouldn't take much for her to declare "victory".
Friday, September 26, 2008
Obama Won When It Counted
Both men had their moments. Obama's tone and posture was much better. A lot of it might have to do with McCain's POW injuries, but the visual was very striking, I think, and that matters a lot to the dreaded "low-information voter".
I was really struck by how often McCain called Obama naive, or unprepared, or that he just doesn't get it. It's all well and good (though not particularly illuminating) for McCain to say that. It would have been better to demonstrate it, which I don't think he did.
All in all, I think that because of the difference in body language and tone, as well as managing to reassure voters that he can hold his own against McCain on foreign policy, will give Obama an edge coming out of this. While Obama was never particularly strong at any point, he was solid all the way through and didn't give McCain or SNL anything to parody. I think Darrell Hammond got some material for his McCain impersonation, though.
I was really struck by how often McCain called Obama naive, or unprepared, or that he just doesn't get it. It's all well and good (though not particularly illuminating) for McCain to say that. It would have been better to demonstrate it, which I don't think he did.
All in all, I think that because of the difference in body language and tone, as well as managing to reassure voters that he can hold his own against McCain on foreign policy, will give Obama an edge coming out of this. While Obama was never particularly strong at any point, he was solid all the way through and didn't give McCain or SNL anything to parody. I think Darrell Hammond got some material for his McCain impersonation, though.
Live Debate Post
8:57 To review from the pre-debate post, I'm watching MSNBC (in case I comment on a particular shot angle or something, or a commercial), and also following online at the C-SPAN Debate Hub, and I'll be continuously posting within this post, so keep refreshing!
9:01 Showtime at the anti-Apollo. Doesn't get more anti than a university in Mississippi
9:03 Why the acrobatics to try to shoehorn economics into the foreign policy debate? Just say "ok, economics, go!" It's like "How It's Made" on the Discovery Channel, where they have a little intro into why water heaters are important or whatever instead of just getting on to how it's made. Just go!
9:05 Lucky for Obama to get to go first. He gets to be the first to say all the obvious stuff like opposing CEO pay
9:06 Obama needs to say "fundamentals of the economy" as often as possible
9:06 Why the mention of Kennedy? He's out of the hospital already! It was a minor seizure!
9:07 "Probably, certainly" followed up immediately by a reference to the fact that he's an old man. nice!
9:09 Obama's desperate to not answer if he's in favor of the bill. Of course, I'm sure McCain will do the same.
9:10 Taking McCain's line about a 21st century regulation plan.
9:11 What a long way to go to not say much with the Eisenhower story, John!
9:12 Attaboy! "fundamentals of the economy fundamentals of the economy fundamentals of the economy fundamentals of the economy"
9:13 Lehrer's trying to pick a fight between the candidates
9:14 Barack needs to ask McCain what exactly he wants to cut. Earmarks are in the grand scheme of things a tiny portion of the budget. You could completely get rid of earmarks without making much of an impact on the deficit. What else are you going to cut?
9:15 He's still mentioning the $3 million for bear DNA despite picking a VP who did almost exactly the same thing.
9:16 YES! Obama is in fact talking about the insignificance of earmarks. This stuff ain't so hard. Archinal in 2024! You heard it here first
9:18 People weren't corrupt before the last 5 years?
9:19 This is a fun format for a debate, ain't it? They're going to be cutting each other off before this is over. Hopefully McCain will bang on his lecturn with his shoe.
9:21 But under McCain's plan, 100 million families won't see a dime in income tax cuts
9:23 The vast majority of Americans are hearing about "taxing health care benefits" for the first time right now
9:24 McCain has tried and, by his own admission, failed to control spending.
9:25 The "voting for tax increases for people making $42,000 a year" is based on votes on broad, non-binding budget guidance resolutions. No one's taxes would have been raised by Obama's votes.
9:27 Apparently Obama thinks it's more fun to talk about what we can spend money on instead of what we can't, which is what the question was.
9:30 That was actually a pretty good answer from McCain about cost-plus contracts
9:31 Obama did a good job of stepping on McCain's "hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left" line, knocking McCain off rhythm.
9:33 Classic illustration of differences between them. McCain wants a "spending freeze", capping all spending with one fell swoop, whereas Obama wants to have a more nuanced approach
9:34 Is it just on my computer that the C-SPAN instant response graph thing isn't working?
9:36 Classic Republican "Harry and Louise" scare tactics on Obama's health care plan
9:37 Obama needs to mention Bush more
9:40 Why exactly does he think Iran doesn't have increased influence even if we "win"?
9:41 "Senator McCain and President Bush..." Keep saying that, Barack!
9:42 Here's a timeline of McCain's statements on tactics and strategy in Iraq to debunk his claim just made that he has opposed Bush's war execution since 2003
9:43 True, the next President won't have to decide if we have to go in Iraq, but he will have to decide if we go to war in Iran, Syria, Russia, Lebanon, etc. So who thought what about the previous decision is kind of relevant, despite McCain's hopes.
9:44 Good job with remembering McCain's quotes re: WMDs and being greeted as liberators
9:47 Nice answer about voting against funds for troops, making it instead about timelines
9:50 Gotta admit McCain's doing better on foreign policy questions than he did earlier
9:53 McCain didn't push the parallel between Afghanistan in the 1980's and Iraq today as hard as I thought he was going to. I expected a more explicit statement that leaving Iraq will risk a Taliban-like government in Iraq eventually...
9:56 Wow, Obama went to the "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" thing! The claws are out more than I expected
9:58 Where's McCain going with this history lesson?
9:59 So he's saying "I know how serious war is, but I'll make jokes and sing stupid songs about it anyway"
10:00 It's time for an old-fashioned bracelet-off!
10:02 McCain got more than a little snotty there with the "when I chair a sub-committee..." thing
10:03 Then stop wasting time, Jim!
10:04 "And I don't care how many brown people I have to kill to avoid that Second Holocaust!"
10:07 "But Russia and China are bad! We can't talk with them!"
10:08 Is Obama going to mention the "never negotiate from fear, but never fear to negotiate" line? Let's find out!
10:09 Attacking Obama on meeting with Ahmadinejad et al didn't work for Hillary. Why does McCain think it will work for him?
10:12 McCain is really trying to hammer on the "Obama doesn't understand" line
10:17 Look how many nationalities Obama can name! See, he's qualified!
10:20 I'm sorry, I'm bored by this Russia stuff. There, I said it
10:24 Apparently Obama's bored, too, as he's doing some contortioning to get back to energy
10:25 Obama's looking over at McCain a lot, while McCain's looking at Lehrer or the floor. If you're into reading body language, that's a plus for Obama
10:26 McCain said "How could anyone be against alternative energies?" Come back to this blog this weekend (probably on Sunday, as I'm on call all day tomorrow) for a list of times McCain voted against it.
10:27 McCain's said several times tonight that he thinks we tortured people since 9/11. Does that mean a McCain Department of Justice will pursue criminal charges against members of the Bush Administration?
10:31 Ending our occupation of Iraq is not just Obama's plan. It's the plan of the Iraqi government!
10:33 Heh, Obama was apparently saving the "We're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when we could use that money to fund X, Y and Z here" argument for near the end, when it's more likely to be remembered. Well done
10:34 Oh, well if McCain thinks Obama is unprepared, I'm convinced. Thanks for clearing that up, John!
10:35 McCain says, basically, "Ready on Day One!". Great! Again, that worked so well for Hillary
10:37 And we're done. Another new post for post-debate thoughts
9:01 Showtime at the anti-Apollo. Doesn't get more anti than a university in Mississippi
9:03 Why the acrobatics to try to shoehorn economics into the foreign policy debate? Just say "ok, economics, go!" It's like "How It's Made" on the Discovery Channel, where they have a little intro into why water heaters are important or whatever instead of just getting on to how it's made. Just go!
9:05 Lucky for Obama to get to go first. He gets to be the first to say all the obvious stuff like opposing CEO pay
9:06 Obama needs to say "fundamentals of the economy" as often as possible
9:06 Why the mention of Kennedy? He's out of the hospital already! It was a minor seizure!
9:07 "Probably, certainly" followed up immediately by a reference to the fact that he's an old man. nice!
9:09 Obama's desperate to not answer if he's in favor of the bill. Of course, I'm sure McCain will do the same.
9:10 Taking McCain's line about a 21st century regulation plan.
9:11 What a long way to go to not say much with the Eisenhower story, John!
9:12 Attaboy! "fundamentals of the economy fundamentals of the economy fundamentals of the economy fundamentals of the economy"
9:13 Lehrer's trying to pick a fight between the candidates
9:14 Barack needs to ask McCain what exactly he wants to cut. Earmarks are in the grand scheme of things a tiny portion of the budget. You could completely get rid of earmarks without making much of an impact on the deficit. What else are you going to cut?
9:15 He's still mentioning the $3 million for bear DNA despite picking a VP who did almost exactly the same thing.
9:16 YES! Obama is in fact talking about the insignificance of earmarks. This stuff ain't so hard. Archinal in 2024! You heard it here first
9:18 People weren't corrupt before the last 5 years?
9:19 This is a fun format for a debate, ain't it? They're going to be cutting each other off before this is over. Hopefully McCain will bang on his lecturn with his shoe.
9:21 But under McCain's plan, 100 million families won't see a dime in income tax cuts
9:23 The vast majority of Americans are hearing about "taxing health care benefits" for the first time right now
9:24 McCain has tried and, by his own admission, failed to control spending.
9:25 The "voting for tax increases for people making $42,000 a year" is based on votes on broad, non-binding budget guidance resolutions. No one's taxes would have been raised by Obama's votes.
9:27 Apparently Obama thinks it's more fun to talk about what we can spend money on instead of what we can't, which is what the question was.
9:30 That was actually a pretty good answer from McCain about cost-plus contracts
9:31 Obama did a good job of stepping on McCain's "hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left" line, knocking McCain off rhythm.
9:33 Classic illustration of differences between them. McCain wants a "spending freeze", capping all spending with one fell swoop, whereas Obama wants to have a more nuanced approach
9:34 Is it just on my computer that the C-SPAN instant response graph thing isn't working?
9:36 Classic Republican "Harry and Louise" scare tactics on Obama's health care plan
9:37 Obama needs to mention Bush more
9:40 Why exactly does he think Iran doesn't have increased influence even if we "win"?
9:41 "Senator McCain and President Bush..." Keep saying that, Barack!
9:42 Here's a timeline of McCain's statements on tactics and strategy in Iraq to debunk his claim just made that he has opposed Bush's war execution since 2003
9:43 True, the next President won't have to decide if we have to go in Iraq, but he will have to decide if we go to war in Iran, Syria, Russia, Lebanon, etc. So who thought what about the previous decision is kind of relevant, despite McCain's hopes.
9:44 Good job with remembering McCain's quotes re: WMDs and being greeted as liberators
9:47 Nice answer about voting against funds for troops, making it instead about timelines
9:50 Gotta admit McCain's doing better on foreign policy questions than he did earlier
9:53 McCain didn't push the parallel between Afghanistan in the 1980's and Iraq today as hard as I thought he was going to. I expected a more explicit statement that leaving Iraq will risk a Taliban-like government in Iraq eventually...
9:56 Wow, Obama went to the "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" thing! The claws are out more than I expected
9:58 Where's McCain going with this history lesson?
9:59 So he's saying "I know how serious war is, but I'll make jokes and sing stupid songs about it anyway"
10:00 It's time for an old-fashioned bracelet-off!
10:02 McCain got more than a little snotty there with the "when I chair a sub-committee..." thing
10:03 Then stop wasting time, Jim!
10:04 "And I don't care how many brown people I have to kill to avoid that Second Holocaust!"
10:07 "But Russia and China are bad! We can't talk with them!"
10:08 Is Obama going to mention the "never negotiate from fear, but never fear to negotiate" line? Let's find out!
10:09 Attacking Obama on meeting with Ahmadinejad et al didn't work for Hillary. Why does McCain think it will work for him?
10:12 McCain is really trying to hammer on the "Obama doesn't understand" line
10:17 Look how many nationalities Obama can name! See, he's qualified!
10:20 I'm sorry, I'm bored by this Russia stuff. There, I said it
10:24 Apparently Obama's bored, too, as he's doing some contortioning to get back to energy
10:25 Obama's looking over at McCain a lot, while McCain's looking at Lehrer or the floor. If you're into reading body language, that's a plus for Obama
10:26 McCain said "How could anyone be against alternative energies?" Come back to this blog this weekend (probably on Sunday, as I'm on call all day tomorrow) for a list of times McCain voted against it.
10:27 McCain's said several times tonight that he thinks we tortured people since 9/11. Does that mean a McCain Department of Justice will pursue criminal charges against members of the Bush Administration?
10:31 Ending our occupation of Iraq is not just Obama's plan. It's the plan of the Iraqi government!
10:33 Heh, Obama was apparently saving the "We're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when we could use that money to fund X, Y and Z here" argument for near the end, when it's more likely to be remembered. Well done
10:34 Oh, well if McCain thinks Obama is unprepared, I'm convinced. Thanks for clearing that up, John!
10:35 McCain says, basically, "Ready on Day One!". Great! Again, that worked so well for Hillary
10:37 And we're done. Another new post for post-debate thoughts
McCain-Obama 1st Debate! Live Updates!
7:21 We are coming to you live from The Doctor's Office in fabulous Pittsburgh, PA! I honestly have no idea if this is gonna be worth a darn, but join us, won't you?
I think my plan is going to be to continuously update this same post throughout the debate. If it gets too long, I'll start a 2nd post, and so on. Also, I'm going to time stamp each entry manually, unless that gets to be too irritating.
7:23 Actually, I just decided that I'll be starting a new post when the debate actually starts. But, so as to protect the integrity of the live blog/running diary concept, so you don't think I'm modifying previous sub-posts, I'm not going to change the title of this post.
7:24 Some pre-game prep: Politico has a "tale of the tape" comparing the two candidates.
7:30 C-SPAN has what appears to be a useful debate page. It's complete with one of those graphs with lines for each candidate (and the moderator, for some reason) which goes up and down based on how a focus group watching it reacts, by turning knobs or whatever. Might be fun.
7:44 Gonna be watching on MSNBC, hoping for a random Rachel Maddow sighting.
8:15 Even though I'm a liberal, I gotta admit the Oliver Stone W. movie looks ridiculous.
8:18 Tonight's debate will consist of nine (or ten, depending on the source) segments of ten (or nine) minutes each, with moderator Jim Lehrer posing a question to one or the other, who would be given two minutes to respond, and then it's pretty much a free-for-all for the remainder of the segment. Sounds like fun, huh?
8:24 Oops, turns out each candidate gets 2 minutes at the start of each segment, then the last 5 are free-for-all. My bad.
8:44 What the hell is this Bill Murray movie? Apparently this is supposed to be a teaser, but they're running it with every commercial break, so it's just irritating.
8:45 I realize trailer analysis might be treading on Revere High alum Scott Mendelson's turf. Sorry, Scott!
8:52 Interesting thought from fivethirtyeight.com: "There's a meta communication that Obama gives off of being calm and nuanced, that he can explain something in depth. It's reassuring The simpleton 'What do we do with evil, negotiate with it or defeat it? Defeat it!' Q-and-A that McCain is better at than Obama won't fly during this crisis."
8:56 OK, time to switch over to the main debate post, so this one's all done. Catch you on the flip side
I think my plan is going to be to continuously update this same post throughout the debate. If it gets too long, I'll start a 2nd post, and so on. Also, I'm going to time stamp each entry manually, unless that gets to be too irritating.
7:23 Actually, I just decided that I'll be starting a new post when the debate actually starts. But, so as to protect the integrity of the live blog/running diary concept, so you don't think I'm modifying previous sub-posts, I'm not going to change the title of this post.
7:24 Some pre-game prep: Politico has a "tale of the tape" comparing the two candidates.
7:30 C-SPAN has what appears to be a useful debate page. It's complete with one of those graphs with lines for each candidate (and the moderator, for some reason) which goes up and down based on how a focus group watching it reacts, by turning knobs or whatever. Might be fun.
7:44 Gonna be watching on MSNBC, hoping for a random Rachel Maddow sighting.
8:15 Even though I'm a liberal, I gotta admit the Oliver Stone W. movie looks ridiculous.
8:18 Tonight's debate will consist of nine (or ten, depending on the source) segments of ten (or nine) minutes each, with moderator Jim Lehrer posing a question to one or the other, who would be given two minutes to respond, and then it's pretty much a free-for-all for the remainder of the segment. Sounds like fun, huh?
8:24 Oops, turns out each candidate gets 2 minutes at the start of each segment, then the last 5 are free-for-all. My bad.
8:44 What the hell is this Bill Murray movie? Apparently this is supposed to be a teaser, but they're running it with every commercial break, so it's just irritating.
8:45 I realize trailer analysis might be treading on Revere High alum Scott Mendelson's turf. Sorry, Scott!
8:52 Interesting thought from fivethirtyeight.com: "There's a meta communication that Obama gives off of being calm and nuanced, that he can explain something in depth. It's reassuring The simpleton 'What do we do with evil, negotiate with it or defeat it? Defeat it!' Q-and-A that McCain is better at than Obama won't fly during this crisis."
8:56 OK, time to switch over to the main debate post, so this one's all done. Catch you on the flip side
McCain Needs a Knockout
And I'm not talking about Palin.
As glad as I am that McCain has announced that he will in fact attend the debate tonight (which you can follow right here at The Political Doctor), it really does seem to be a complete and utter capitulation from McCain.
From his statement on Wednesday, when he announced he was "suspending" his campaign:
Tune in to The Political Doctor tonight to find out if he does.
As glad as I am that McCain has announced that he will in fact attend the debate tonight (which you can follow right here at The Political Doctor), it really does seem to be a complete and utter capitulation from McCain.
From his statement on Wednesday, when he announced he was "suspending" his campaign:
We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.Of course, no agreement has been reached (i.e., this crisis is not resolved and the government has taken no action to address this crisis), but McCain announced today that he will, in fact, attend the debate. From his campaign press release today:
He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon. Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners."I'm trying really, really hard to not get my hopes up too much, but it really seems like McCain's in trouble. He sure could use a good performance tonight to get himself back on track and stop his slide in the polls.
Tune in to The Political Doctor tonight to find out if he does.
Schadenfreude, Anyone?
The National Review, a leading conservative magazine founded by conservative icon William F. Buckley, has a feature on their website called "The Corner", which is pretty much a combined blog for several of their contributors. It's a pretty good site for following up-to-minute conservative Republican thinking.
Pretty grim over there right now, at 1:39pm Eastern. An example.
UPDATE: 1:51pm. Now the National Review is turning on Sarah Palin! One article on their website says, re: Palin, "something's gotta change", and another says she is a candidate "Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League" and should quit the race.
Pretty grim over there right now, at 1:39pm Eastern. An example.
UPDATE: 1:51pm. Now the National Review is turning on Sarah Palin! One article on their website says, re: Palin, "something's gotta change", and another says she is a candidate "Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League" and should quit the race.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
McCain Should Read The Political Doctor!
McCain sat down for an interview on Tuesday with Cleveland's Own WKYC Channel 3 News. Here's a clip. Pay particular attention the the question about whether he would support the Paulson bailout plan, about halfway through the clip:
Isn't that amazing? On Tuesday, the senior Senator from Arizona had not yet read the Paulson bailout plan. In case you're not a regular reader of this humble blog, on Sunday, fully 2 days before McCain said he hadn't yet read the plan, I posted a link to the plan, READ IT, and then posted my reaction to the proposal.
So I would like to invite Senator McCain, who was at least two days behind The Doctor on this campaign-suspending-worthy issue, to click the "Subscribe" button on the bottom of this blog, so that I can help him stay up on the news.
Isn't that amazing? On Tuesday, the senior Senator from Arizona had not yet read the Paulson bailout plan. In case you're not a regular reader of this humble blog, on Sunday, fully 2 days before McCain said he hadn't yet read the plan, I posted a link to the plan, READ IT, and then posted my reaction to the proposal.
So I would like to invite Senator McCain, who was at least two days behind The Doctor on this campaign-suspending-worthy issue, to click the "Subscribe" button on the bottom of this blog, so that I can help him stay up on the news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)