It took me 23 years to get a college degree so I'm not sharp or sophisticated enough to pitch her overboard just yet.

It doesn't really matter how long or even IF you get a college degree with respect to one's degree of intelligence. My mother dropped out of college and was the most well-read intelligent woman I've ever known.

What matters more is whether one is intellectually curious, whether one's experience with the world is such that they can start to see the patterns of life as they flow together, to see outside oneself in order to make accurate predictions about the consequences of one's actions and whether thinking outside the box is likely to lead to desirable or undesirable effects.

I think Palin will prove herself to be one of those individuals who doesn't think outside the box. I haven't seen any real evidence that she reads outside of the Book of Revelation and the other good book, Vogue. In my observations of her as Governor of the state, she's been remarkably egocentric for someone with very little innate substance. She really can't see outside of her own personal needs (i.e. the obvious and rightfully investigated abuse of power investigation where she not only used the power of her office to try to get her brother-in-law fired for actions for which he had already been punished but also used the state of Alaska official website as a pulpit accusing those questioning her veracity
of being liars. She knows no clear separate of the boundaries of private life and governmental duties, and that is something of which we should all be rightfully afraid.

Of course I really believe that. The two statements as written are not mutually exclusive.

The fact that Sarah Palin spent five years securing a journalism degree at a second-rate college in Idaho IS a marker for a lack of intelligence when taken as part of the pattern of her life. I never said that I based her lack of intelligence on the 5 year college timeframe alone, and I don't; i just used it as an example. It is very possible to take 23 years to get a college degree or not to get a college degree at all and be quite intelligent. With there always being exceptions, and as much as this may offend you, in general those taking a shorter time to secure a more difficult degree at a more rigorous school are in general more intelligent than those who take a longer time at an easier degree in a less rigorous school.

But looking at Palin specifically, she had her college paid for by her parents and she went to five different schools within a 6 year period, starting with Hawaii Pacific University, where she attended less than a half-year. She culminated her educational career with her last year and a half at the University of Idaho.

And of course those schools alone and her lack of ability to focus and stick to any one school by itself does not by itself mean that she's not intelligent.

Why I don't think she's intelligent (taking into consideration the above as part of the pattern of her life) has to do with hearing her answer questions. I watched her participate in Alaskan gubernatorial debates prior to her election here with less than half of the vote, and was struck by how little (i.e. NEVER) she answered simple questions, preferring to stick to a rote litany of whatever she wanted to say, even when asked repeatedly to answer the questions asked. There is a reason the Republican machinery are hiding her from the press: it's that she doesn't have any knowledge of foreign policy, or economic policy, or really much of anything. She can read off a teleprompter and can get back to whatever sound bite she wants to give. That doesn't make her intelligent in my mind; it makes her a puppet of her Republican masters, who are hoping that the American public is too stupid to actually demand answers from those running for office. If she was ALLOWED to answer questions, perhaps each of us could make up our own mind about how intelligent she is.

A telling aside: Someone who I trust implicity once told me that Palin privately told him that people really don't care whether you have a grasp on the issues at all and that having such a grasp was not important. It only matters whether they liked you or not. Well, I suppose that's true, if you're running for homecoming queen, but hopefully we're a bit beyond that here. Hopefully, we live in a country where education is valued and command of the issues is important. But we'll see.

To some extent, elections are popularity contests. We can say all that we like to the contrary, but if you don't like someone (for whatever reason) it doesn't matter what they stand for - you will be adverse to voting for them because you don't like them.

It's a bit like people who are party-aligned. It doesn't matter what the party stands for, has achieved, has promised and renegged on - if you are a life-long voter for one party, it doesn't matter what the other party does or doesn't do, it doesn't matter what your party does or doesn't do, you continue to vote the same way you have always voted.

I have seen this first hand in Australia, especially rural areas - it doesn't matter who the candidate is, if they belong to the National Party, then they will get voted into office. The other parties fail to nominate decent candidates as they know that they will lose - why bother, in other words.

All we can do is make our own decisions based upon the information at hand at the time - and make sure that we are not swayed by "I don't like her/him" or "I've always voted Republican. I don't agree with them, but that's how I'm going to vote".

It may well be a little more apathetic here - we Aussies are forced to vote (it's compulsory), rather than choosing to. Sometimes it's easier to just tick the boxes rather than have an informed opinion.

The question strnog brought up is whether a candidate like Sarah Palin has sufficient education and or intelligence to be a competent VP.

I feel she hasn't, and agree that the party machine and other aparatus will get her to project an intelleigent image.

Her choice was basically made on her 82% popularity with Alaskans, and the strategy to appeal to rural types that they need to win.

It's similar to Bush gaining all his red states, and McCain keeping those states.

Now, I want to comment on McCain's statement that he will get the best and brightest to fill cabinet positions, and will ask that they take $1.00 per year.

I doubt this can be achieved in that we generally get what we pay for, and those C.E.O.'s in top corporations have all the perks they need to keep them fat and satisfied, so why should they bother to work in a government position?

I also have observed that there isn't parity as much as one would expect between earning power and intelligence. (i.e. so many college educated people unemployed)

I wouldn't expect to see many people in government with high intelligence. When incompetence surfaces, they merely get replaced with other incompetents ala Bush style.

...and, I'm amazed that in Australia they are "forced to vote".

How is that enforced?

When I lived in Chicago, you were not forced to vote, but some managed to vote early and often. For Democratic Party candidates of course.

Re: Charlie Gibson Interview.

As is typical with all politicians, she never answered "yes" or "no" on any direct question.

On the question about the "Bush Doctrine", obviously she didn't know it was about preemptive strikes against supposed threats.

...or, if you will...shoot first and answer questions later.

And when intelligence is proven to be faulty, I guess it's "che's sera, sera...whatever will be will be".

No recourse when they err.

Nice.

My earlier notes on this thread pretty much sum up the Gibson interview. Here we have Sarah Palin, someone who has no real understanding of foreign policy pretending to be an expert on this for what are essentially laughable reasons, after being coached by Republicans who are far smarter than her. The Republican party are depending on the stupidity and closet racism of the American public to capture enough votes in swing states to put a telegenic but vacuous person one heartbeat away from the Presidency. And, as above, I almost always have voted Republican in the past.

Opentv, as has been my experience before, you've seen now how she NEVER answers questions. I agree that this is something common among politicians. How this is different, in my opinion, is that most politicians don't want to answer a question because they don't want to lose the segment of the viewing electorate that might disagree with their position on a certain topic.

Sarah Palin doesn't want to answer because she really doesn't know the answers to the questions.

Very, very scary.

Quote:

---

The Republican party are depending on the stupidity and closet racism of the American public to capture enough votes in swing states to put a telegenic but vacuous person one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

---

I respect you and your opinion, but that has my hackles raised. I highly doubt that Obama will get my vote, but I am not stupid, nor am I a closet racist and I am insulted that a *no vote* on my part implies either.

Whoa, this thread is really entertaining! Here's a little vid that some of you might find humorous. Then again it might [censored] a few of you off. Oh well, either way, enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfz6QGmuvp4

Oh WOW, I got censored! That is SO cool!

Lamentably, ever since William Henry Harrison's 1840 campaign, presidential candidates do in fact have to pander to or bamboozle the masses. Because so many of us are ill-informed or habitually swayed by emotion rather than reason, this is a necessary evil of our system.

That doesn't mean we are all stupid or racist.

And ever since the televised Kennedy-Nixon debate, candidates who are not telegenic have suffered, perhaps unfairly. But perhaps not: they will have to appear before the entire world if they gain the presidency.

Sarah Palin is obviously telegenic and connects with audiences and is woefully short of information, which I insist on calling ignorance rather than lack of smarts. She's plenty smart! Just uninformed and inexperienced. I would venture to say that most political columnists and reporters--and even some FT members!--are far more well-traveled, well-connected, and informed than she, and the television personalities are obviously telegenic. So why didn't McCain pick one of them as his running mate?

It's the show biz aspect. He NEEDS "one of the people." Yes, it's a daring, bold, or foolish gamble--you decide--but leaders have to do that. Look to the entrepreneurs, to the generals, to the explorers. Risk is part of their lives.

In many ways this election will be a decision between populists and elitists, but even more, it will be decided on images perceived at the gut level.

If you want to read about an under-qualified vice president, look up William Wheeler. On the other hand, hardly anyone has been as well-qualified for the presidency as John Quincy Adams, generally seen as a failure in that office. He lacked charisma.

For my part, the fact that Roberta McCain, at the age of 96, can leap to her feet and wave to well-wishers and later join her son on the platform gives me hope that he will live to be 76.

Paul and Jordan,

I truly apologize and reading my post, find fault with it myself, for not qualifying what I said. I should have said more closely what I meant, which would be, "The Republican Party are depending on the stupidity and closet racism of a segment of the American public to capture enough votes in swing states to put a telegenic but vacuous
person one heartbeat away from the Presidency". I don't believe for a second that the entire population of America is racist or stupid, nor do I believe that voting against Obama makes one racist or stupid and I apologize if there was any inference of that in my post. People should no more vote for or against Obama based on his race than they should vote for the McCain/Palin ticket because Palin has two X chromosomes.

I would be hard pressed to find ANYBODY on this site that I would consider stupid. The nature of this site is that it would attract MUCH MUCH smarter people than a typical website.

Saying that, I've come to realize that there is a segment of the American population that would never vote for a candidate who has African heritage regardless of whether he would make a better President or not. And this is racism just the same as someone who is African-American voting for Obama is racist if they vote for Obama only because he has some African roots if they don't think he would be a better President.

Paul, I certainly understand how you (and probably others as well) would consider my comments elitist and perhaps there's some truth there. I would suspect, however, that I know more about Sarah Palin than anyone on this site, and I am frankly afraid for the future of my country when we are presented with such a candidate. I know personally from having watched her these past 20 months that she's been Governor that her knowledge base is severely lacking, her understanding of issues doesn't go beyond how best to promote herself and I'm absolutely sure she has abused her power as Governor to pursue personal vendettas that any wise person would have recused themselves from involvement in any way. She's a Governor who came into office on a wave of "Let's throw out the old corrupt bastards who have been Alaskan politics" and promised that her government would be "open and transparent". Instead, we have a Vice-Presidential candidate who her party has severely restricted from answering the type of questions that should be part of the political process and whose involvement in the whole Troopergate scandal just led to multiple staff members and her husband being issued subpoenas because they were unwilling to discuss their roles in the investigation about abuse of power. For those who say that such an investigation was politically motivated, please note that the all 12 of the Alaska Judiciary committee (which is over 50% Republican) thought that there was enough evidence of abuse of power to unanimously vote that it needed to be looked into. This decision was made long before anyone in their right mind would think that an inexperienced Alaska Governor would be the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee.

Again, my apologies for offending anyone. I have the utmost of respect for everyone on funtrivia and look forward to engaging in respectful debate with the best and the brightest who all gather here.

Tim,

I could have done without a little bit at the very end of that, but, HILARIOUS! I can't believe how well-done that spoof is. Thanks--we needed a laugh.

Tim,

It's funny because it's TRUE. Saturday Night Live will have a hard time topping that one. Thanks!

I watched Palin's interviews with Gibson and I was genuinely disappointed, and alarmed, by the shallowness of her replies. I had really expected her to be somewhat more knowledgable. She apparently has never thought about anything that goes beyond the bounds of Alaska.

She had obviously been drilled in how to answer questions on particular topics, and she regurgitated the answers, often repetitively, even though her answers did not really fit the questions. Gibson asked her about national security, and she began talking about energy. He repeated the question, saying energy was only peripherally related, and she still talked about energy--as it pertained to Alaska. And oh, yes, she mentioned you can see Russia from Alaska. She doesn't even seem to understand the range of energy issues--except she wants drilling in Alaska.

I honestly felt somewhat sorry for this woman during these Gibson interviews. She is so woefully out of her depth at the moment it is pathetic. She has been cloistered in the parochial world of Alaskan politics and has been seemingly isolated from, and unaware of, the national and international issues facing the rest of the country. She really can't relate to anything beyond Alaska. She seems less thoughtful, and less knowledgable, about both national and international issues, than the average poster at FunTrivia. Doesn't she read the leading newspapers in the U.S.? Doesn't she follow events outside of Alaska at all? Her lack of understanding of basic issues makes one wonder how well she even understands the problems of Alaska.

When Gibson asked her if she felt ready to be the president, if necessary, she promptly answered, "Yes" but could not say what qualified her or why she had no hesitation about accepting the nomination, except to say that she was up to "the mission". "The mission"? What "mission"? I don't think this woman really has a clue about what's involved in being either the VP or the president. That's both sad and frightening. I don't wonder that Gibson used the word "hubris" regarding her self-confidence in being up to the task of possibly running the country. She clearly is not up to the job. The woman is clueless.

McCain popped up on "The View" Friday morning. He kept asserting he had Palin on the ticket because she is "a reformer". Barbara Walters kept pressing him about, "What is she going to reform?" He didn't really have an answer, but he finally said only, "Washington" and then laughed. He should have laughed, her candidacy is really a joke. If the future of our country wasn't at stake, it might actually be funny.

People might be amused by the thought of feisty "reformer" Sarah Palin blowing into Washington and firing everyone in sight--as she did in Alaska--but that comic movie plot scenario does not fit the reality of what must truly be changed in Washington, or how the next administration must address and deal with our crumbling economy or our precarious foreign policy challenges. We have had eight years of incompetence, thanks to George Bush, and the next president will inherit a mess. We need people with exceptional abilities to navigate and correct our current problems--people with intellectual depth, objectivity, integrity, steady temperament, and strong leadership and diplomacy skills, and McCain/Palin are clearly not those people.

McCain may have picked Palin because he felt he had nothing to lose by doing so, since he appeared to be on a losing trajectory in terms of the election. And he figured she'd give him a boost with the religious right. But, she is so manifestly not ready to be VP, the one thing he may lose is people's faith in his ability to make rational judgments and any respect they had left for him.

In front of cheering crowds of the Republican faithful, Palin can be a big hit. She's the celebrity of the moment. She's a fresh face and voice with a spunky folksy style, and she can deliver her ghost-written speeches and punchlines with a lively style. But, as a serious candidate for VP, who would be one heartbeat away from the presidency if elected, she is, quite honestly, somewhere between a joke and a nightmare. If her other interviews, and the upcoming debate, don't show that she has some grasp of the complexity of the issues, or even some basic understanding of the issues, and some ability to think for herself, this campaign will dissolve into a tragic farce.

If she can't really prove herself to be qualified, the media will rip Palin apart. The Obama camp won't have to do a thing. And, while the Republicans may disingenuously decry the "unfair attacks" on Palin, it is neither unfair nor an attack to point out that she is distorting her past record, magnifying her very skimpy resume and experience, and that she shows no evidence of understanding our serious economic problems, or our foreign policy. I want the media to do their job and cut through the hype and report the facts about Palin.

The future of my country is at stake. If elected, McCain would be the oldest first term president in our history, and he has already had two bouts of cancer. It is not inconceivable that Palin might suddenly be elevated to the presidency. In my lifetime alone, three vice presidents--Truman, Johnson, and Ford--have suddenly become president, so Palin as president seems a very real possibility to me. That prospect gives me the chills. As much as I would fervently like to see a woman as vice president or president, Palin is not that woman. She is not ready, she is not qualified, and I feel she lacks the personal qualities and intelligence required for the job. That McCain put her on the ticket, as a political maneuver, tells me that either he thinks little about the future welfare of the country, or his judment is seriously impaired.

All of the hysteria and hoopla about Palin, before people have even heard her in an unscripted situation demonstrating her qualifications for office, indicates what's wrong with our current media-driven campaign process, not what's good about it. It reflects spin, style, and image-creation, and not substance or fitness for office. It suggests that many voters use something other than their brains when they make the most crucial choices for our country. It does not reflect well on the maturity or intelligence of the American people.

Is this American Idol or a presidential race?

chelseabelle has gone to great lengths to show reasons why Ms. Palin does not fit the bill.

In my previous posts, I commented that we don't seem to get the caliber of person for high office as we would expect given the low earnings they will receive as compared to their corporate counterparts.

On my last statement, let me first show how a Chaney vice presidency achieved certain objectives. Once touted by Bush as the most qualified to be president, Mr. Cheney has enriched himself and his former employer, Haliburton, by exploiting the nation's propensity to engage in conflicts. Haliburton today enjoys higher profits, albeit having been accused of price gouging their services at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.

In sum, the Bush/Cheney administration was a skillfully orchestrated bag of tricks that achieved objectives of enriching some players in the economy, all under the guise of strong defense.

...and, they won't just go away, no matter who wins the next election.

No, Bush is a fixture in American politics. He'll be around to say..."I told you so", when and if the next administration falters. (Quote me on that one)

The second part of this post I want to explore the imagery we are accustomed to of a president, and how our emotions seem to get the better of us when it comes time to pull the lever.

Imagine that we are all blind, for a moment. (Okay, so you say we are indeed blind) Now, listen to Obama speak, and then listen to Palin...and of course, listen to McCain and Biden as well.

On voice alone, it has to be Obama. The shrill high pitches we hear from Palin are objectionable to our tastes and perceived preferences. The subdued, almost silent voice of McCain suggests something sinister in the making. And, his commercials reflect that. It disturbs my senses to no end to listen to that soft voice saying, over and over, "Not ready to lead", when I ask myself, lead to what? And Biden has a good sounding voice of someone who you can relate to having had personal difficulies in his own life.

However, Americans can be subborn, and would like to pursue reasons why a mixture of African and white American is not a person who should get the nod. And, pursue this angle further into all the depths and locations of this vast and disparate nation, and I sadly see where this issue won't just go away real soon. Rather, it is troubling and could be hazardous to anyone seeking high office on their ability rather than origin.

Obama wants to quell this discussion, and "move on", but this nation won't allow that...not now, at least.

And so, we are not blind, and on the upcoming election day, we will be fed images on our t.v. screens of a nation divided, and within the mass of states that comprise the bulk of geography, once again, the reds will dominate.

It is too early to call this election, and too soon to say with certainty that Obama/Biden tower over McCain/Palin when there is a massive center part of the nation that votes republican no matter who comes along.

And, one further comment, if you'll allow me (because polititcs never ceases to amaze me)...the image projected by Ms. Palin is one of a female upstart in corporate America circa 1980. Since then, she has changed a bit, looking more masculine and certainly dressing up for the part as well.

This may or may not confuse the issue as to what the woman voters want, but the women I know favor a Hillary type over this "Janie come lately".

Thanks, and I also agree with strng in appraising the writers within this magnificent forum.

It's all in the perception. In Obama I hear an angry charlatan trying to fool me with smooth talk. Hey Barack. I spent many years on the mean streets of Chicago. Strnog1 knows Alaska. I know the ins and outs of Chicago and it's rather crude politics, reminiscent of the Politburo.

Quote:

---

In Obama I hear an angry charlatan trying to fool me with smooth talk.

---

PaulDrake, I'm just curious, what do you think Obama is trying to fool you about?

And, why do you see him as angy? Angry about what?

I see Obama as clearly representing the Democratic party position on the major issues. There were no major ideological differences between Obama and Clinton during the debates. They are, quite clearly, Democrats.

Democrats and Republicans, for instance, do represent quite different approaches to dealing with our current economic crisis, a good deal of which is the direct result of the policies of the Bush administration. There is nothing, in McCain's economic proposals that reflects a significant deviation from the economic policies of Bush. There is nothing to suggest he will correct the underlying problems with the economy, or even address those issues.

Republicans believe in a lack of government control, regulation and oversight. They believe that big business and large corporations should be allowed to pursue profits without restraints--regardless of the consequences to the average American taxpayer/consumer. McCain clearly espouses that same view. But, it was precisely that lack of regulation and oversight in the banking/lending/mortgage sphere that allowed corporate greed to flourish unfettered until it finally exploded into the housing/mortgage/credit crisis that rocked our entire economy, and is still rocking our economy. And it has required the government to resort to extremely costly bail-outs (the most recent being Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) simply to try to stop the bleeding and avert even greater disaster. And the CEO's of the corporations and banks that engineered these disasters have left their positions with frankly obscene golden parachutes--ranging generally from $20-$75 million each--while the people affected by what they did, have seen their houses foreclosed on, and the values of their stocks tumble into the toilet (as an example, due to bad mortgage loans, Washington Mutual Bank's stock has dropped 80% this year, the bank may not have enough capital to continue it's operations and may need a takeover or an FDIC bail-out, but it's CEO will depart with a $20 million package). Talk about rewarding people for bad behavior.
It is plain crazy to say that taxpayers/consumers, and our economy, does not need some type of protection from this level of corporate greed. And I'm only giving small examples from one sector of the economy--this sort of thing is rampant throughout every sector.

Our jobs have been outsourced, unemployment is rising sharply and rapidly, it is difficult to find anything made in the USA in stores, our balance of trade is lop-sided, our oil companies rake in record profits while average people struggle to afford gas for their cars and oil to heat their homes, the cost of of food and healthcare continues to rise, our retail businesses and auto manufacturers suffer from lack of consumer spending, and consumers have difficulty saving and putting money back into our banks. The economic quality of life for average Americans has been severely compromised under 8 years with Bush. We have gone from a budget surplus to a record budget deficit under Bush. And Republicans have the nerve to imply that Democrats are fiscally irresponsible spenders? McCain will continue these basic Republican approaches to the economy. Over the past 40 years, the average American, and the over-all economy, has fared much better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.

If anyone is trying to smooth-talk and fool you about the economy and his proposals for "change", it is John McCain.

Obama is the last person, among all four candidates, I would describe or characterize as "angry". He has demonstrated, through a rather grueling, long primary process, as well as the initial portions of this campaign, the most level temperament, the least anger, and the most willingness to listen and reflect in a thoughtful manner. His campaign advisors, in fact, have been urging him to get angrier in this campaign in his his response to Republican smear tactics.
McCain's bad temper is so legendary, it has caused many to wonder whether he is emotionally suited to function well as president because it affects his judgment and his decisions and his rationality. His running mate, Palin, calls the people who oppose her "haters" and is known in Alaska for her personal vendettas toward those who cross her. The "pitbull" has a temper.

McCain currently can't even buck the divisive forces within his own Republican party, so he is unlikely to bring any degree of bi-partisan accord to the country. The maverick was the younger McCain--this McCain is an old man, and one who is so stale and lacking in excitement, he is being considerably overshadowed by his unknown, unqualified running mate who brazenly touts her virtually nil executive experience over those who have years and years in Washington (which, unforunately includes McCain).

If people really listen to what the candidates are saying, which is what they should be doing, and stop paying attention to the smoke-screen distractions of the Republican campaign machine, the difference between the two parties, and their proposals, will become very clear. And it will also be clear that McCain will continue to take the country down the same path as Bush.

chelseabelle could be a southern belle...I can't fault her reasoning, nor judgemental production of facts.

Although she is anti-McCain/Palin, and my harping on her issues will be merely singing to the choir, I want to explore any option that a McCain/Palin ticket might provide.

After all, we are a diveded nation of ideas, and never in my memory have I seen this nation more divided...still it's important to see the other party's way of thinking.

Obama is keen on this thought as well. He will listen to opposing thoughts, and this is an important quality of our next president.

The ability to cross party lines, to mingle with the opposition...this I see in the Democratic ticket more than with the Republican ticket.

I agree with chelsea, these folks are into channel thinking, as determined by some long gone and forgotten party foreebearer who is best left dead than read.

And on that thought, it amazes me to no end the lack of speech from George Herbert Walker Bush, who characterized Ronald Reagan's economic deal as "Voodoo economics", and now (as illustrated by Chelseabelle) we are living through it, nothing on the cause celebre Sarah Palin...silence again.

I tell you folks, these politicos are master magicians, no doubt.

It is difficult to evaluate McCain's way of thinking about the economy because he addresses it so simplistically in his stump speeches. For instance, he harps on "earmarks". While earmarks and pork barrel spending should be curtailed, as should all wasteful government spending, they are hardly the basic problem with our economy.

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
The Washington Post

What McCain Economic Policy?
By Harold Meyerson

Thursday, July 17, 2008

"Government is not the solution to our problem," Ronald Reagan told his fellow Americans in his first inaugural address. "Government is the problem."

For modern American conservatism, Reagan's words may as well have been inscribed on the tablets handed down at Mount Sinai. The market was god and Reagan was its Moses, and Republicans have sworn fealty to both for the past quarter-century. One invariable feature of the 2007-08 Republican primary debates was the effort of each candidate to cast himself as Reagan's one true heir. John McCain proudly recounted how he enlisted as a foot soldier in Reagan's revolution. How was he to know that government was about to become a solution again?


Over the past few months, George W. Bush's administration, which consciously modeled itself after Reagan's, has repeatedly been compelled to bail out private or semi-private financial institutions, re-regulate markets, and rescue beleaguered homeowners. Government, it turns out, is indeed a solution -- at times, the only solution -- for large-scale market failure, a problem not foreseen in the gospel according to Reagan.

Unfortunately for McCain and his fellow Republicans, it's the only gospel they've got. At the very moment when the economy looms larger in Americans' consciousness than it has in decades, McCain comes before the electorate doctrinally adrift.

By his own admission, McCain has never been a student of the economy -- but neither have any number of American presidents. When the economy is humming along, their economic illiteracy has been a problem they can elide. They take refuge in the economic bromides of the time. Their speeches are filled with reaffirmations of their party's economic doctrine.

But as McCain tries to balance the tattered libertarianism of Reaganomics with the financial exigencies of the moment, he and his campaign have moved beyond inconsistency into utter incoherence. He vows to balance the budget while also cutting corporate taxes and making permanent the Bush tax cuts for the rich -- even though the rich and corporations made out like bandits during the Bush "prosperity," while everyone else's incomes stagnated. McCain squares this circle by vowing to cut entitlements, a move that would reduce, rather than enhance, consumer purchasing power at a time of economic downturn (or any other time, for that matter).

Whether Americans are even experiencing a downturn has been a matter of some dispute in the McCain camp, since former senator Phil Gramm, until last week one of McCain's chief surrogates on economic issues, deemed America a nation of "whiners" mistaking subjective insecurity over the economy for an objective economic fact. For McCain, who had the misfortune to be campaigning in Michigan the day that Gramm's remarks dominated campaign news, Gramm's insensitivity was appalling. But McCain has never expressed any concern that Gramm wrote the legislation that enabled the $62 trillion credit default swaps market to remain unregulated, which, as David Corn documented in Mother Jones, meant that banks and hedge funds could accumulate liabilities that they could not cover if the markets -- most particularly, the subprime mortgage market -- went south. To the contrary, McCain has viewed Gramm as one of his economic gurus. "There is no one in America that is more respected on the issue of economics than Senator Phil Gramm," McCain declared in February.

Gramm hasn't been the only McCain economic adviser to sound dissonant notes of late. Bloomberg's Al Hunt reports that Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief, has said that if a bipartisan coalition came up with tax increases on the rich, a McCain administration might embrace the proposal. On Tuesday, however, a campaign spokesman reiterated McCain's opposition to such tax hikes.

How to explain the McCain campaign's glaring contradictions on economic policy? Why do the policy mantras that every campaign uses and needs get so warped and so ignored? Why can't the campaign stay on message? The turmoil in management that has afflicted the campaign from the start surely deserves some of the blame, but I suspect the issues run deeper. One problem is that McCain himself has no real ideas about how to fix the economy, which leaves his tetherless surrogates free to roam the policy landscape. An even deeper problem is that standard-issue Republican economic policy has run out of plausible mantras. The ritual extolling of markets and denigration of government make no sense at a moment when a conservative Republican administration is rushing to save the markets through governmental intervention.

Or, to use Reagan's construction: Republican economics is not the solution to our problem; Republican economics is the problem -- for our nation, surely, and also for candidate McCain.

meyersonh@washpost.com


--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------

Okay, we are all now about to see what happens when the government lets a Wall Street giant fold. The government brokered the bail-out of Bear Stearns, but apparently will not do the same for Lehman Brothers. Since March, the feds have made their discount window available to securities firms, and this is an emergency lending program. We are probably about to see how well that will work.

This is from today's paper:

Quote:

---

The New York Times
September 15, 2008

Lehman Heads Toward Brink as Barclays Ends Talks
By BEN WHITE and JENNY ANDERSON

Unable to find a savior, the troubled investment bank Lehman Brothers appeared headed toward liquidation on Sunday, in what would be one of the biggest failures in Wall Street history.

The fate of Lehman hung in the balance as Federal Reserve officials and the leaders of major financial institutions continued to gather in emergency meetings on Sunday trying to complete a plan to rescue the stricken bank.

But Barclays, considered the leading contender to buy all or part of Lehman, said Sunday that it could not reach a deal without financial support from the federal government or other banks, making a liquidation more likely.

The leading proposal had been to divide Lehman into two entities, a “good bank” and a “bad bank.” Under that scenario, Barclays would have bought the parts of Lehman that have been performing well, while a group of 10 to 15 Wall Street companies would agree to absorb losses from the bank’s troubled assets, according to two people briefed on the proposal. Taxpayer money would not be included in such a deal, they said.

But that plan fell apart on Sunday, making it likely that Lehman would be forced to liquidate.

What remained unclear was how a liquidation might proceed. One option that was discussed on Saturday would have major banks and brokerage firms continue to do business with Lehman as it unwinds its assets and liquidates over a period of months, according to several people briefed on the discussions. That would buy Lehman time to sell those assets in an orderly way and avoid a fire sale that could depress prices of similar assets held by other banks.

The overarching goal of the weekend talks was to prevent a quick liquidation of Lehman, a bank that is so big and so interconnected with others that its abrupt failure would send shock waves through the financial world. Of deep concern is what impact a Lehman failure would have on other securities firms, insurance companies and banks, notably Merrill Lynch and the American International Group, both of which have come under mounting pressure in the markets.

A.I.G., one of the world’s largest insurers, may need to raise $30 billion to $40 billion to avoid a severe downgrade to its credit rating, according to people briefed on the situation. An A.I.G. spokesman, Nicholas J. Ashooh, called that estimate speculative and declined to comment further.

Some considered the weekend talks as high-stakes brinkmanship.

Both Barclays and Bank of America expressed interest in buying Lehman and were negotiating hard, initially insisting that the government provide financial support. But federal officials were adamant that no public money be used — a big point of contention because many of the top Wall Street executives believe that their banks, which have each written down tens of billions of dollars in assets, do not have the capacity to lead the rescue on their own.

The prospects of a deal involving Bank of America appeared to fade as talks progressed Saturday and it became clear that the government would not stray from its position.

---

---------------------------------------------------------

Our economy is in very scary and precarious shape. McCain better stop harping on "earmarks" and start addressing some of the more major issues of our crumbling economy, along with some proposals to provide some immediate relief--as Obama has done. Right now, both the taxpayer and the government are cash strapped--but McCain doesn't want to raise tax rates on big corporations or on the wealthy. So how will the government raise money? McCain has no immediate solutions, and his long range solutions are all designed to benefit and protect big business. The average citizen is not going to benefit from a McCain presidency or the economic climate he would create.

McCain/Palin do not seem to be in touch with the real world when it comes to the economy.

I come here on the heels of writing for Yahoo Answers, and my last remarks were about the economy, which I characterized it as "free falling".

In this "precarious" state we are in, the business models of many big powerhouse financial firms are in shambles.

Chelseabelle mentioned Lehman Brothers, a century and a half institution whose business is gone...I believe totally gone...gone with the wind...gone with the tide of crazy junk funding of the past few years...so what is it now worth?

In July, J.P. Morgan Chase was pushed into buying Bear Stearns...but now things have grown dramatically worse, and now you have to value most financial institutions as practically worthless.

And it all is fundamental.

Consumer can't buy, his home is no longer supporting his debts and providing cash on equity.

He gets shoved around from job to job.

I mean, folks, this failure of recent times is now gone global.

To explain it as merely "shaky" is modesty.

I don't think any candidate can revive our collapsed economy as it now stands, save with dramatic and strategic major moves that rekindle buying and spur demand again.

Otherwise, only a few corporations will flourish...those directly related to survival will do okay.

I have become more and more disconcerted as the US election process has gone on this time around at the growing divide between the two main factions. It seems as though there’s been an enormous wedge driven into the gap between the two sides and Sarah Palin’s nomination is the last blow with Thor’s gigantic hammer if you will. I have based my own opinions on several things.

First, I am privileged to know many people with whom I can discuss these things, and here at FT, we are fortunate to be able to remain civil when we do so. I also look over an enormous amount of written material, mainly online but I delve into both sides of the coin before I decide. I have to say that it’s good to hear from our FT members in Alaska to give their own perceptions of pre nomination Sarah Palin to counter balance the glowing eighty percent stuff we keep hearing. That’s always made me wonder what’s going on.

Second, I also base my own judgments of what is going on this election on having lived in seven states representing the major US population areas (including Hawaii when Obama was in school there) and knowing many people from all sorts of backgrounds amongst my friends. I also lived abroad for about half of my adult life, which means that when you’re an American in the USA, patriotic songs and pride in your American identity at a Fourth of July parade is one thing, but abroad you are confronted with your identity every day whether you like it or not. I can’t help but think that this particular US election is more polarized than ever. But it could me be!


Here is why I feel this way though; with the advent of internet access for many people, everyone has an opinion and can express it freely and there are websites for every conceivable point of view, yet, instead of truly sharing information that might be useful to us all, they are full of virulent hatred for the opposite side. (going beyond the sports like 'trash talk' between parties) In fact, if you look at the right wing commentators, they are disdainfully saying that the other side is just a flock of sheep listening to the Marxist spouting off and that you are woefully naïve to even listen to that. They storm around and act as if only they detain the truth and that anyone else is deluded if they think that Obama is anything else but an empty suit, phrase which we’ve heard ad nausea. These voices are echoed underneath any brief article you see in the news online. I have looked at all sorts of sites as I wanted to see if the feelings I was having were widespread. I admit that I do not watch much TV news; therefore, I am free of that worry about whether my daily dose of mainstream media is run by the right or the left. I also feel able to discern whether I’m being fed a load of garbage or not. What I’m seeing out there is virulent disrespect for the other side’s views and when Palin was nominated, we went through a frenzy of things that truly obscured the entire subject of who was really fit to govern the nation in this time of crisis. I have also dipped into the real dark side to see if my perception was on the ball, and sure enough, the rants sections of some of the net are full of deep seated hatred for the other side. It's racist and it is out there. Scary stuff indeed. I see the polarization as extreme this time and unhelpful to those of us who truly want to look at both sides.


I have tried to see why anyone could possibly justify voting for Palin based on what we’ve been shown, and even that glimpse of public appearance is being treated in an American Idol fashion with scores of comments about how ‘unfair and mean’ the interview was from those folks who sympathize with Palin and find her the epitome of what they want in terms of change. Good grief, if a self-proclaimed pitbull fears this gentlemanly approach from a seasoned reporter who her team chose to interview her, when he had to be insistent on points that Americans must be informed on about her way of thinking and suitability for the office, then what good would she be faced with real threats to her integrity? If Sarah Palin had been interviewed or critiqued by a Simon Cowell type, we’d have seen her collapse or accuse him of bias. If there is any real reason to give this woman any confidence and her team the vote, then, they better come up with it very quickly. I for one, will not settle for the spiel on the pitbull hockey mom living next to Russia to cast my vote for someone to lead the USA. Yet, the more you read online, the more you see that there are millions of people who are giving their approval to her without seeing how she does react when questioned in a civil interview style one on one. She can deliver a moving speech to those numbed by the ennui of John McCain’s unfortunate delivery, but, beyond energizing the convention as she did, is there any substance to her nomination? I haven’t seen it yet.

And now we get to the uncomfortable part, and I am not alone in feeling this way about what I call the ‘pro family’ stance that she has that is very aggressive. What is uncomfortable? Because like many women my age, I have fought for the rights of other women to live their lives the way they want to…and if that means staying home with children, then that’s wonderful, or going to work, or whatever combination that they and their partners in life work out. And I uphold her right to conduct her personal life the way she wants, but if this way of life is being pushed into my face as a selling point in her favor, then No, I’m not buying that the way it’s been presented to me. The factors which upset me about her stance are that the ‘going back to work three days after the birth’ thing is not a good thing for anyone much less US mothers because it means that any meager measly protection we might have acquired won’t be fought for because the VP is so openly doing something that isn’t even prudent or pro family…unless of course you have family to help you or paid help to surround you. If you do believe that motherhood is sacred, then, bonding with an infant is important and three days is nowhere near the time people need. If my daughter or other young women are going to be held up to those standards, and that is going to be normal I say no. I worked ten days after my firstborn out of financial necessity, with the help of her father, so, I am no wimp, I simply find some of the things shoved down our throats to be excessive. I can just see the employers using her as the example of strong women etc. Am I sexist for saying this openly? I don’t feel sexist about it. I did at first. I also scoured the stay at home mothers’ boards to see what the buzz was there, and opinions are much more divided there than you would be led to think. Many women are saying, ‘ok, if she can do that, more power to her, but I am human, I need a bit more rest and a bit more time with my child. I may only have one or two in my lifetime after all.’ We cannot afford to have siblings for our kids to help us raise our children.

I am also adamantly opposed to denying some form of help to women who have been raped or the victims of incest. I have met a woman in the South who was bearing a child after a rape, because of her religious reasons. In my opinion, this is punishing the woman, and the child she will bear who will be given up for adoption, and the man who committed the crime will have his child borne. I respect other’s opinions and convictions about this issue, but no, there is no reason not to give the woman the morning after pill to prevent the possibility of that rape ending in pregnancy nor anyone else for that matter. This is not a PRO FAMILY position, it is going to ruin the life of a young woman and possibly her child. So I do object to someone who openly espouses those views, regardless of whether she herself carried her son to term or whose daughter is pregnant. That is immaterial to me…it is her lifestyle being touted as illustrious and courageous that I question. Also, when questioned about hesitating about accepting the job, she said she didn’t blink and you must not blink, well, when you’re the mother of five, soon to be grandmother, promoting maternity as wonderful, and working at the governor’s job in a state which represents your upbringing and lifestyle so well, and in fact the native American heritage of your children, you stop and blink…and think, ‘hey, is this enough? Do I know enough about the world to do this job? Should I put my family life in jeopardy for this opportunity by uprooting everyone? Or is there possibly someone else more qualified?’ If I’m a sexist for asking this, then so be it. I think Barack Obama has expressed himself publicly about his family’s decision process. Biden is being lambasted by the right for ‘abandoning his two young sons orphaned in that accident to go be a bigwig in politics’. I think McCain is open enough about his first marriage breaking up etc and the process for this election bid. A seventy two year old man has not much to lose in this bid, he’s done plenty of things in his lifetime, so, he’s probably thinking ,’hell, it’s worth a chance.’ In my opinion Palin is the one who is not being honest enough about the stress on her family. But that is her affair. Just don’t show off her lifestyle to me as an example of what everyone else should be doing as something to be admired. I’m seeing a lot of stay at home mothers who home school who have some misgivings after they acclaimed this choice.


I have to agree with Chelseabelle that this whole thing is being conducted like American Idol but without the strong presence of Simon Cowell to get down to business with Sarah.

The other disconcerting thing in the polarization between the main two factions is this, there is classicism as much as racism brewing there. The undercurrents I’m hearing are anti-education and we had this with Bush, but Bush, the MBA president, came from two of the East Coast establishment schools that everyone’s touting as evil in terms of others because Sarah Palin went to small schools, five of them, to get an inauspicious degree in journalism. I sound elitist, but, this is being brandished as a reason to vote for her, not a reason to vote against her. And anyone who says the contrary is treated like being part of the East Coast establishment elitist crowd of leftist sheep who want to see Americans turning into socialists. I for one feel that if her formal education did not match up to the other candidates, she would have to show us that she’d acquired sufficient street cred in an international setting in order for anyone to feel confident voting for her as VP. Bush’s elitist superior education never bothered anyone as he himself always gave the impression that he’d gotten through it by the skin of his teeth and it did not make any difference. Regardless of where she got her education, Palin isn’t showing much of it. Or, enough to convince discerning people that she could lead the country. Arnold Schwarzenegger gives the impression that he is knowledgeable about world and national affairs, Palin does not. Hillary Clinton knows her stuff, Palin hasn’t shown us anything. Obama is someone who knows where countries are on a map, Palin does NOT give me that impression. We will see after she’s been coached. I too share the discomfort that Chelseabelle expresses at the interview because Palin is out of her comfort zone. For those who say that Obama is the empty suit, and knows nothing, he knows the law, and he knows about the world. He wasn’t handed his Ivy League education on a platter like Bush was, and he made something out of himself. So what if he is ambitious, most people in office are…it matters why someone is ambitious. Those schools select on the basis of leadership qualities. I help students write essays all the time to get into big schools. What I mean is that if someone does NOT have a fancy formal education that's one thing, but having a big degree and big education is NOT a mark against someone. It means they can deal with the establishment, especially since they were there from the outside. I think it's an asset, not a disadvantage. Sarah's education is lacking, unless she shows her stuff in terms of foreign policy and knowledge in debates. This might still happen. I was going to say when pigs fly, but don't wish to continue that analogy!

My conclusion is that there is very little anyone could say at this point to persuade me that Palin is a good choice for valid reasons but what disconcerts me is that her nomination brings such a virulent hatred into the game and that each side is pointing to the other and calling them deluded. (not here at FT of course) Is this what McCain intended? I fear this is why he chose her. Vote with your head as well as your heart. We’re all educated enough to discern between news sources. And I thank our Alaskan friends for giving us the inside stories.