Palin can’t even name a newspaper she reads regularly?

It’s becoming flat out painful to watch anymore:

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —

COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.

PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.

COURIC: Can you name any of them?

PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.

She can’t even name one?  She can’t even pull the New York Times or the Alaska Daily News? Time? Newsweek? Anything?  She either isn’t smart enough or fast enough (or both) to even think of a name to lie about on the spot.  Hell, the Washington Times would be good enough.

Palin is either just like Bush and just doesn’t read, or the newspapers and magazines Palin does read would instantly send horror and fear into any rational, thinking American.  Unfortunately, I’m afraid it’s the second, given what we know about her policy positions.  Her positions are in the extreme wing of the extremist part of the Republican Party, so it wouldn’t be shocking if her favorite material was some of the most off the wall right-wing crap as well.

But you know, at this point, my hysterical laughter about Palin has turned into pain and pity more than anything else.  Palin could have had a future on the national scene had she swallowed her hubris and admitted to herself – and John McCain – that she isn’t freaking ready to be Vice President right now – that 6 years as a small town mayor and 18 months as governor just doesn’t cut it.

If she had just sat where she was and spent 8 years as governor and moved onto the Senate or something, she could have run for President in 2020 or something.  But Palin’s ambition, which has been on full display all the way (to the point of outshining McCain at his own rallies, and glorisly taking full advantage of it) has sent her head first into a race which is increasingly looking like the end of any possible national career she may have ever wanted to have.

Of course, the election isn’t over, and McCain may find some way to pull in a win out of his ass in the next 35 days, but barring that, I don’t see how Palin is anything other than a political joke outside of Alaska from this point onward.

McCain at it again: More lying ads

Were you longing for the days of McCain’s blatantly false and lying ads? Have to fear, for they have returned, and they are as shameless and untruthful as ever:

Oh noes! Obama said the fundamentals of our economy are strong, just like McCain!

Oops, no he didn’t:

I have said it before and I’ll say it again: we need to pass, after this immediate crisis is over, an economic stimulus plan. Right now. For working families – a plan that will help folks cope with rising food and gas prices, that can save one million jobs by rebuilding our schools and our roads, and help states and cities avoid budget cuts and tax increases. A plan that would extend expiring unemployment benefits. For those Americans who have lost their jobs and have been working hard to find a new one, but haven’t found one yet. That’s part of the change we need.

And then after this immediate problem, we’ve got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows. Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses that deserve it. As president I am going to eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups. That’s how we’ll grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

Color me surprised.  There are basically two ways to read this, and I’d probably have to see a video to see which way, but neither way is the way McCain wants to read it.  Obama is either saying that all the stuff in the first paragraph will create the fundamentals, or he’s saying that after the “immediate problem” then he’ll address the fundamentals (I end to favor the first interpretation, and appears to be the one that I think Obama is using).

In any case, McCain one again shamelessly lies about Obama.

As someone on dkos said, we’re now just waiting for them to find some video where Obama says “some emails out there are saying that I’m secretly a Muslim” and then have them cut out “I’m secretly a Muslim” and stick it in an ad or something.

So, the bailout failed. What choices are left?

One of the reasons why I was for the bailout (I think I spent more time on dkos talking about this than on here) is that it was probably the only real solution that a) addressed the problem at hand b) with the speed necessary, and c) had any chance of passing.

Now that the GOP couldn’t hold up their side of the bargain in getting 70 to 80 votes in favor of the bailout, options seem to be very few and far between.

Anything that will make the conservative ideolouges happy will probably be untenable to the Democratic majority while anything that will make the liberal ideolouges happy will be untenable to the Republicans, would probably face a Republican filibuster in the Senate, and could be vetoed by Bush even if it could get that far.

That basically leaves four options left:

1) Start from scratch in a bipartisan way.  The problem with this is that we really would be starting from scratch, and it’s hard to see how a bipartisan “from scractch” bill would be anything other than an ineffectual Frankenstein bill.

2) Do a mini-bailout.  The thought here is that if we cut the bailout in, say, half and try to pass it, that might win enough people over to pass it.  The question then is whether it would be so small that you castrate the bailout from actually doing any good.

3) Try with the same, or a very similar bill, again.  I have a feeling that this is what is going to happen first – that they may go back to the House, maybe even with the identical bill, and try to pass it on Thursday, hoping that the market volitility has convinced enough people to vote for it.  If it fails again, then they can declare the Paulson plan dead, and head for door number….

4) Do nothing.  This is about the worst possible choice, though I pretty much agree with Hunter that, if option 3 above doesn’t work, doing nothing is the most likely scenario.

I just don’t see a plan other than the current plan which will be able to pass Congress and get Bush’s signature.  I just don’t.

Post Mortem

I’m sorry to say that I think McCain cleaned Obama’s clock in this debate.  It’s not that Obama didn’t know what he was talking about or anything, but I think McCain typically got in the last word and Obama didn’t hit McCain where he needed to hit him.

I think Obama held his own or perhaps even won the economics part of the debate, but the national security debate was another matter, and let me go through it question by question:

Q: What are the lessons of Iraq?

McCain brought up the surge early and often, starting with this question, and Obama never really responded to McCain’s claim that Obama opposes what McCain and even Obama calls a successful strategy.  There has to be some reason why Obama opposed it (well, I know what it is), but Obama never explained it, and as a result just got hit after hit from McCain on that topic.

I think in talking about the costs of the war, Obama scored points, but I think a lot of that stuff is so old by now that I’m uncertain how much it will matter.  The only thing that I think might be impactful in regards to starting the Iraq War is McCain’s judgement in supporting it, which he did bring up with his line “McCain wants to pretend the war started in 2007.”  However, Obama never responded on the surge, and he didn’t respond on McCain’s attack that he doesn’t know the difference between tactics and strategy.

I’m not sure how Obama could respond to that.  McCain has a sort of inherent authority on military matters and you risk looking dumb if you try to claim that McCain doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but perhaps Obama should have implied that at least once.

Q: Do you think more troops should be sent to Afghanistan and how many?

I think the Afghan question may start turning to McCain now too.  McCain’s answer to Afghanistan: do a surge (which Obama admits worked in Iraq) in Afghanistan.  Obama can say that he supported sending in troops longer, but McCain I think scored points by saying that more troops isn’t enough, that there needs to be a change of strategy as well.

I think Obama might have scored some points in regards to Pakistan, but I’m not sure if it was enough to overcome McCain’s win on Afghanistan.

Q: How much of a threat is Iran?

I think this is where Obama really got routed.  McCain pounded on Obama relentlessly for wanting to meet “unconditionally” with Iran, etc., and Obama’s answers just seemed to be backtracking.  “Yes unconditionally, but not without preparation.”  That just seemed to be parsing words to me.  Also, McCain’s jab about “what are you going to say when Iran says they’re going to destroy Israel? No?” was a hit, mainly because Obama didn’t respond.  He didn’t get a chance to in that sequence of discussions, but he could have it it first thing on the next question.

Q: How do we deal with Russia

I think this may be one of the few questions that went to Obama, but not because of Russia per se – I think they basically said the same thing in regards to Russia – but because of Obama bringing up that McCain voted against alternative energy so many times in the Senate.  I also doubt how effective McCain’s attack on Obama for his “initial statement” on Georgia is going to be.

Q: What is the probability of another 9/11 attack.

I think McCain’s statement about the 9/11 commission was a powerful one…if true.  McCain also talked about fighting torture, and instead of pointing out that McCain voted against banning torture, Obama actually praised McCain’s work on the topic.

I think Obama scored quite a few points by tying together Iraq, The War on Terror, and the economy, and by this point McCain’s railing about the surge probably wasn’t going to do any more than what it had already.

Scorecard

So out of five national security questions, I’d say Obama had a slight win in 2, while McCain had a slight win in 1 and a big win in 2.  By the way, by my count, McCain got in the last word in all 5 questions.

Debate Live Blog

I’ll be live blogging the debate as much as I can here, at 9pm eastern.

As for expectations, I think Obama has to pretty close to close out this deal that he can be commander-in-chief.  He’s already doing pretty good considering he’s ahead, but he risks having a lot of undecideds swing to McCain because of their possible uncertainty on that matter.  I think Obama showing himself to be close to equal to McCain on the issue will be good enough.  He doesn’t have to outperform McCain on foreign policy, but he has to stay close.

Meanwhile, McCain has to outperform Obama in foreign policy, as that’s his only strong suit left.  If he can’t even show that he’s better than Obama on foreign policy, he’s dead.  I think McCain also has to lay out, specifically, whether a) he wants a bailout plan and b) if so, what does he want in the plan or c) if not, what his plan is.  If McCain cannot or does not answer that question, any questions about the economy in this debate will be a failure for McCain.

Q: Where do you stand on the bailout.

Obama: We have to move swiftly and wisely.  I put forward proposals to protect taxpayers: oversight, tax-payers must get something back, no golden parachutes, help home owners.  This is final verdict on economic theory supported by Bush and McCain.

McCain: I haven’t felt good about things recently, but I feel better tonight.  Dems and Reps are working on plan together.  Package has to have transparancy, oversight, options for loans to failing businesses.  I went to Washington and helped bring House GOP into negotiations since they were left out.  Still have work to do.  Dependence on foreign oil.

Q: Where specifically do you stand on the plan?

Obama: Constructive work on plan, and work is being done, but there is no final plan to judge yet.  I warned 2 years ago that we might have a problem due to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.  We have to look at how we got into this mess.  Due to philosophy that says that deregulation is always bad.

McCain: I hope to vote for the plan.  I also foresaw this.  People lack responsibility, and we have to hold people accountable in both Washington and Wall Street.  People will be held accountable in my administration.

Obama: Yes, we need accountability, but not just during a crisis but all the time.  McCain said 10 days ago that fundamentals of the economy are strong, and I disagree.

McCain: Main Street is paying a price for excesses of Washington and Wall Street.  We need “consolidation” of regulations.  I have fundamental belief in the American worker and the U.S.

Q: Is there a fundamental difference between your plan and Obama’s plan in dealing with the economy?

McCain: Spending is out of control.  GOP went to Washington and Washington changed us.  Earmarks = bad.  I’m going to veto every spending bill across my desk with pork barrel spending.  Obama has supported millions in pork spending.

Obama: Earmarks process has been abused.  I have suspended asking for earmarks until system has been cleaned up.  Earmarks accounts for $18 billion total in budget.  McCain supports $300 billion in tax cuts to corporations.  We have to grow economy from the bottom up.  95% of families get a tax cut under my plan.

McCain: Obama suspend earmarks after he started running for President.  Earmarks are out of control, and it corrupts people.  People are under indictment because of earmarks.  Obama supports $800 billion in new spending.  I want to cut spending.

Obama: I don’t know where McCain is getting his figures.  I close corporate loopholes.  I support reform of the health care system.  Absolutely we need earmark reform, but eliminating earmarks alone won’t cut it by itself.

McCain: US pays second highest business taxes in America.  Businesses will go to countries who have lower corporate tax rates.  Earmarks account for more than $18 billion.  I want tax credit for health care.  We can’t raise taxes of anybody.  People may be interested to know what Obama’s definition of rich is.

Obama: If you make less than $250,000, you will not have a tax hike.  Yes, on paper tax rates are high, but loopholes make the rate effectively one of the lower in the countries.  McCain doesn’t want to close the loopholes, but just to cut more taxes on top of the loopholes.  McCain wants to tax credits.  Employer has to pay taxes on healthcare you get.

McCain: Obama is talking the talk, but not walking the walk.  Obama voted for wasteful energy bill while I voted against it.  I’m the candidate who has fought wasteful spending.  Let Americans choose if they want the existing tax code or a new tax code.  McCain has voted to raise taxes on those who make $42,000 a year.

Obama: Under McCain’s plan, oil industry would get tax breaks.  I tried to strip tax break breaks for oil companies from energy bill.

Q: As a result of whatever bailout occurs, what are you going to have to give up as President?

Obama: We can’t know what budget will look like, and some things will have to be delayed.  However, I will not delay working for energy independence.  We have to fix health care system.  Have to invest in education and make college affordable.  Have to rebuild infrastructure.  Have to eliminate programs that don’t work.

McCain: Have to cut spending.  Obama has most liberal voting record in Senate.  I would eliminate ethanol subsidies.  Have to cut out wasteful spending, even in defense spending.  I know how to do this.

Q: Are there going to be no major changes in your plan?

Obama: Individual proponents of some of these plans may need to be delayed.  Have to reform Medicare drug program.  My being liberal is mostly my opposing Bush’s policies in Congress.  However, I worked with republicans as well on issues, such as transparency.

McCain: Spending freeze on everything except for national defense, veterans, and entitlements.

Obama: Spending freeze is using a hatchet where one needs a scalpal.  Some programs need more funding.  Bringing Iraq War to an end will also save money.

McCain: We need alternative energy, including nuclear power.  Also need offshore drilling.  Obama opposes nuclear.

Q: Are you willing to acknowledge that financial crisis will change the way you deal with the budget

Obama: Let’s assume we get all $700 billion back from the bailout, we still have a hole in the short term, so yes, I’m going to have to make tough decisions.  To make those decisions, we have to create priorities on what is important.

McCain: Obama’s health care plan would essentially nationalize health care.  Spending has been one of the major problems.

Obama: It’s your President who has presided over this spending crisis – a President whose budgets you’ve mostly voted for.

McCain: I’ve opposed President on climate change, torture, spending, Iraq War, etc.

Q: What are the lessons of Iraq?

McCain: You can’t go into a war with a failed strategy.  The surge!  We are winning!  Troops are able to come home due to surge.  Defeat = increase in Iranian influence, increase in violance.

Obama: We should ask whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place.  I stood up against the war when it was unpopular.  We’ve spent $600 billion, 4000 lives, seen 30000 wounded, yet al qaeda is stronger that it’s been since 2001.   We shouldn’t hesitate to use military force, but it has to be used wisely.

McCain: Next president doesn’t have to deal with whether we win, but how we leave.  Obama said that surge wouldn’t work, then said surge has worked but would still would oppose it.  Heads subcommittee on Afghanistan but didn’t go for 900 days.

Obama: I haven’t had to deal with the war because the full committee deals with it.   Surge has reduced violence, but it was a tactic that was only implemented because the previous 4 years were mismanaged.  McCain wants to pretend the war started in 2007. McCain said it would be easy, there would be WMDs, and McCain was wrong on all of these points leading into the Iraq War.

McCain: Obama doesn’t understand the difference between tactic and strategy.  I visited troops who told me “let us win.”  Obama refuses to admit that we are winning in Iraq.  We’ll also do a surge in Afghanistan.  Obama voted to cut off funding for the troops.

Obama: McCain voted against funding troops by voting against a bill which had a time table, while I voted against funding troops by voting against bill without a timetable.  The difference was over a timetable, not about funding the troops.  We cannot win the war in terror while still fighting the war in Iraq.  Troops should be phased out of Iraq in 16 months, while adding more troops to Afghanistan.

McCain: Generals have said that Obama’s plan is dangerous.  Bin laden says Iraq is central front on war on terror.  Obama’s plan would create a wider war.

Q: Do you think more troops should be sent to Afghanistan and how many?

Obama: Yes, and I’ve been saying that for a year.  Violence is highest it’s been in Afghanistan.  Can’t separate Afghanistan from Iraq.  We have 4x more troops in Iraq, a nation which had nothing to do with 9/11 and didn’t have al qaeda before we entered.  We also have to press Afghan gov. that the’re working for their people.  We have to deal with poppy trade.  We have to deal with Pakistan.  We’ve kept giving money to Pakistan, even though they weren’t helping us.

McCain: I won’t washing my hands of the region, which was a mistake back in the 80s.  I’m not prepared to cut off aid to Pakistan, so I will not threaten to cut funding.  You don’t say that you would launch strikes into Pakistan out loud.  Obama doesn’t understand that we need a new strategy, and it has to be the same strategy that Obama disses in Iraq.  I know how to work with Pakistan.

Obama: No one has talked about attacking Pakistan.  My plan is that if the US has top level al qaeda operatives in our sights, and if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to strike, we will.  McCain lacks credibility on “saying proper things” when he talks about wiping out North Korea and singing songs about bombing Iran.  Problem in Pakistan is we treated Mushariff as “yes, he’s a dictator, but he’s our dictator” and thus have alienated the people.

McCain:  When Mushariff came to power, Pakistan was a failed state.   I opposed sending marines into Lebanon when Reagan wanted to send them in.  I supported First Gulf War.  I supported going into Bosnia when many people in the GOP were against.  I supported going into Kosovo.  I opposed going into Somolia.  I have record in being involved in national security issues.  I have a bracelet from a mother of a fallen soldier who says to not let him die in vain.

Obama: I also have a bracelet from a mother who asked me to make sure that it doesn’t happen to someone else.  No soldier dies in vain.  The point is that we have to know when it is proper to send in the troops.  McCain once said we can “muddle through” Afghanistan.  You can’t muddle through Afghanistan.

McCain: Obama didn’t go to Afghanistan for a long time.  If we sufer defeat in Iraq, which we will if we do Obama’s plan, it will have a calamitis affect on Afghanistan.

Q: How much of a threat is Iran?

McCain: If Iran aquires nuclear weapon, it is an extesential threat to Israel and the region.  We cannot allow 2nd holocaust.  Russians are preventing action in UN.  I propose League of Democracy to impose painful sanctions on Iranians.  Iranians have lowsy gov. and thus have lowsy economy, and we can impact it.  Iran continues towards making nuclear weapon.  Iran are sending IEDs into Iraq.  People are being trained in Iran.  Obama didn’t vote for making Republican Guard a sponsor of terrorism.

Obama: I believe Republican Guard is a terrorism organization.  War in Iraq has strengthened Iran.  Iraq was biggest balance to Iran.  Policy over the past 8 years have “obviously” not worked.  Obviously Iran can’t have nuclear weapons.  We need tougher sanctions, but we have to have cooperative with Russia and China in doing so because.  We need tough direct diplomacy with Iran.  Isolation of nations has not worked.

McCain: Obama supports sitting down with leaders of rouge nations without preconditions, which will legitimize their behavior.  I’ll sit down with anyone, but there has to be preconditions.

Obama: I reserve the right as President to meet with anyone to meet with anyone at the place and time of my choosing if it will help.  Kissinger, who advises McCain, says we should meet with Iran.  Without preconditions doesn’t mean coming over for tea.  Preparation is not the same as having preconditions.  Of course we need preparation, which will start with low level talks.  Refusing to meet with North Korea also hurt the situation with them.  Situation only improved after we started talking.  McCain said suggest we might not meet with prime minister of Spain even.

McCain: Kissinger didn’t say President-to-President talks.  Talking without preconditions legitimizes Iran and is dangerous.  North Koreans has broken every agreement they have agreed to.  We need to do Reagan’s trust and verify.

Obama: No one has been talking about starting off with Presidential level talks.  We can’t expect to solve problems by demanding Iran submit to all our demands before we even meet.

Q: How do we deal with Russia

Obama: How we deal with Russia has to be reassessed.  Going into Georgia was inexcusible.  Have to affirm all fledgling democracies in the area.  However, we can’t return to a Cold War posture.  We have to fight nuclear proliferation which is a risk with Russia.

McCain: Obama’s first statement on Georgian crisis was that both sides have to show restraint, which shows that Obama is naive.  I looked into Putin’s eyes and saw three letters: a K, a G, and a B.  Incursion into Georgia was also about energy.  Georgia has big oil pipeline.  Very difficult situation.  We have to watch out for Ukraine as well.

Obama: McCain is wrong to say I didn’t think invasion was wrong.  We have to have foresight to anticipate these issues.  I told Bush months ago about the Russian “peacekeepers” in Georgia.  Yes, part of the problem is energy, which is why we need energy independence.  But we can’t drill out way out of the problem.  McCain has voted 23 times against alternative energy.

Note: Will McCain’s scoffs be the new Gore sigh?

McCain: Offshore drilling is a bridge.  Obama doesn’t want to deal with nuclear waste.

Obama: I have never said I objected to storing nuke waste.

McCain: No one can oppose alternative energy.

Q: What is the probability of another 9/11 attack.

McCain: Much less than it was on 9/11.  I helped bring up idea of 9/11 commission.  Have to improve human intellegence.  No torture.  Improve intellegence capabilities.  I know our allies.  Safter, but still have a long way to go.

Obama: We are safer in some ways, such as airport security and securing potential targets.  Needs to harden chemical targets, need to improve port security.  Biggest threat isn’t a nuke on a missile but one in a suitcase.  I support missile defense, but we’re spending too much on it.  In the end, we have to go to the root cause, which is Pakistan and Afghanistan.  The way we are perceived in the world will help us work with others.  I’ll restore our standing in the world.

McCain: Obama says that missile defense has to be “proven.”  Obama still doesn’t get that if we fail in Iraq, al qaeda will establish a base in Iraq.  Having a timeline would risk all the work we’ve achieved.

Obama: This administration and McCain have been solely focused on Iraq while ignoring bin laden and al qaeda.  We’re allowing China to influence areas of the globe that we are ignoring because of Iraq.  Iraq is also impacting economy and our budget.  We need to better fund Veterans Affairs.  We’ve put all the chips in Iraq, to the detriment of everything else.

McCain: I’ve been invovled in every major national security issue of the past 20 years, and I don’t believe Obama has knowledge and experience to be President.  Obama is like Bush in denying that surge hasn’t worked.  I don’t need on the job training.

Obama: My father came to the US because he saw the US as a nation like no other, and our standing in the world just isn’t that good anymore.

McCain: POW!  I worked on normalization of relations with Vietnam.  I know how to deal with everything.

Bailout a political no-win for Democrats?

I think kos makes a good point here, but he also misses the point as well:

If Democrats want to throw away this election, there’s no better way to do it than to join Bush in his “Chicken Little” act, and raid the treasury to bail out those incompetent and greedy Wall Street assholes…

Unlike Iraq, there’s a real crisis here, that requires real governmental intervention. But like Iraq, waiting a few weeks for a better picture of the crisis to be painted would inject much needed reason into this process. I wouldn’t go so far as to claim that this crisis is good for McCain. But for down-ballot Republicans desperate for a populist issue to grasp, this could be a gift from heaven.

So there’s a political reason to wait five weeks until after the election for a response, which will hopefully be more persuasive to some than the obvious “good policy” reasons.

This line of reasoning makes sense, but it ignores two very important points.

First of all, most economists, even liberal ones, have basically gone out and said that something needs to be done and needs to be done sooner rather than later.  Part of being a politician is sometimes having to do something which is necessary, even if it’s very unpopular.

Second, let’s say Democrats do wait until after the election to deal with this.  Then those same republicans who otherwise would have said that they would have voted against it would then turn around and scream about how the Democrats are playing politics while the economy crumbles in front of them, creating what could be a very effective attack on an issue which is seen as one of the Democrat’s best.

So Democrats are faced with either Republicans leading the wrath of the people that they gave away $700 billion, or they are faced with Republicans leading the wrath of the people over them not doing anything about the economy collapsing.  Neither of those choices are particularly favorable toward democrats.

That’s part of the reason why people like Senator Dodd have been pushing so hard for a compromise plan that will both bailout wallstreet, but do it in a way that isn’t a give away, or at least one which is a mere small fraction of what it was going to be otherwise.  That way Democrats at least hope that they can have their cake and eat it too – insluate themselves against attacks that they’re just giving away money to Wall Street while also doing something.

Dodd brings possibly sanity back to Bailout

Krugman appears to like it on first look, which should be most of our seals of approval if he gives it a final sign off.

Reported parts of this plan include:

• Create a 5 member oversight board consisting of the Fed Chairman, the Director of the FDIC, the SEC chairman, and an expert appointed by both the majority and minority parties in Congress.
• Requires that the Secretary of the Treasury be given contingency shares of a company equal to the amount of debt purchased.  If the company is not publicly traded, then the US Treasury would be first in line when it comes to gaining access to a company’s assets upon bankruptcy.
• Authority for bankruptcy judges to restructure mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure
• Limits on executive compensation.

And other stuff that i don’t really understand.

It may not have a lot of new regulations that I’d like to see, but it is light years better than the blank check we were looking at before.

GOP complaining about Democrat’s “partisan plans and pet projects” to keep bailout bill a GOP partisan plan and pet project

I guess it shouldn’t be shocking that the White House bail out plan is basically a plan to give free money to Wall Street firms.  Democrats are at least starting off by pointing out the obvious: if you want to help Wall Street, then help the regular American as well:

Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who attended emergency meetings with the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, on Capitol Hill last week, described the proposal as a good start, but said that it did little for regular Americans.

“This is a good foundation of a plan that can stabilize markets quickly,” Mr. Schumer said in a statement. “But it includes no visible protection for taxpayers or homeowners. We look forward to talking to Treasury to see what, if anything, they have in mind in these two areas.”

In Florida, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic presidential nominee, said he would press for a broader economic stimulus initiative to be part of the bailout plan for financial firms.

The GOP’s response: “This shouldn’t be partisan!”:

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said in a statement: “This proposal is, and should be kept, simple and clear.” He added, “Simply put, now is not the time for partisan plans or pet projects.”

Nevermind the fact that giving almost $1 trillion of free money to businesses, while adding virtually zero additional regulation or help to regular homeowners is about as much of a GOP partisan plan or pet project as one can possibly get.

The question is whether the Democratic leadership can keep their caucus together.  Once again, the blue dogs in the House and Senate may be spooked into voting for an unamended bill, which would give the Bush Administration an excuse to hold firm and play the “partisan plan” card.  If the Dems can hold together, I think a “what about Main Street?” line can be successful in forcing some concessions.

We’ll have to see how this plays out next week.  McCain hasn’t given his opinion of Bush’s plan yet, though I wouldn’t be surprised if he tows the GOP line of “we have to pass it now as is.”

McCain can’t help himself: Yet ANOTHER misleading ad (plus bonus lying)

Really, McCain can’t help himself:

1) The quote of Biden saying that “paying higher taxes” is patriotic is taken out of context.  Biden said it was patriotic for wealthy Americans.  The McCain ad doesn’t add in that extra part, making it sound like Obama thinks that it would be patriotic for everyone.

2) They bring up the “Obama voted to raise taxes for those making $42,000 a year” even though that vote was “based on a nonbinding Senate budget resolution early this year that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 be allowed to expire in 2011 as scheduled.”

3) He makes the claim of “higher taxes on seniors and their life savings” based on Obama wanting to raise capital gaines taxes on those making over $250,000.

4) He lies about Obama wanting to tax electricity.

So yeah. More lying from McCain.  Is that a surprise?

McCain does it again: Misleading attack over Obama’s advisors

Here is ad #2.  As TPM notes, the connection here is actually stronger, so why not lead with this ad?

As I said, the connection here is stronger: Jim Johnson was tapped to help Obama pick a running mate.  However, there are two important pieces of information McCain just forgot to mention, I’m sure.

The first is that, Obama may have picked him because he’s done this job before, helping vet Vice Presidential candidate for both Mondale and Kerry.

Second, when people noted his connections to Fannie Mae at the time, Jim Johnson “resigned” from his VP vetting position, so he actually had no real say in who Obama’s VP was, despite the fact that the ad flashes up a picture of Biden then they mention that he was hired to vet the VP.  His total employ time for Obama was a week.

Was Obama hiring of him a bad mood?  Probably.  But once that became obvious he was gone as fast as he came, which is more than what McCain can say about most of his advisors.