NOTE: Be sure to vote this article up at Newsvine!

On the afternoon of August 10, 1921 a 39 year old American man from a rich and distinguished family took three of his children out for an afternoon sail in the icy waters off Campobello Island in New Brunswick where his family maintained a summer home. His life to that point had been a charmed one. A beloved mama’s boy, handsome and carefree he’d managed to climb the political ladder based on his name despite having been a mediocre student at Harvard. When a chill came over him that evening he went to bed complaining of “lumbago”. When he would awake the next day he would find his life forever changed as the result of his being diagnosed with infantile paralysis which would rob him of the use of his legs for the rest of his life. At that point in time, Franklin Roosevelt found his character as many a man finds it — in extremis. The rest, as they say, is history.

On October 23, 1967 a young Navy flier was on his 23rd mission in the skies over North Vietnam at the controls of his A-4 Skyhawk fighter-bomber when a Soviet-made SAM missile the size of a telephone pole took the wing off his aircraft and he found himself injured and falling into a lake in enemy territory. Prior to that day this young man, also the son of a famous martial family, too had gone far on family connections. Consistently obstreperous and rebellious he had caused his admiral father considerable grief while racking up demerits at Annapolis pushing back against the academy’s powers-that-be. But on that afternoon as he floated in a lake in North Vietnam, John McCain would begin a remarkable odyssey of heroism, grit and determination that would mark him the rest of his life as an American hero. Tortured beyond human endurance after he refused early release which his captors would no doubt have used as a major propaganda victory, McCain would bear the price of this episode of pushing back against power the rest of his life every time he tried to raise his arms or comb his hair — actions the rest of us take for granted. And when the time came for his country to make peace with its old adversary, John McCain again led his party in making that peace.

After arriving on Capitol Hill in 1983, John McCain would again go against the prevailing tide in his party and advise Ronald Reagan that American Marines were serving no useful purpose in Lebanon and should be withdrawn. McCain was right and Reagan was wrong as would be borne out when a homicide bomber blew up his vehicle at the Marine barracks near Beirut killing hundreds of Marines. The Marines were then withdrawn and somewhere a young Saudi man from a wealthy background watched and saw an America that he viewed as weak. In 1990-91 McCain would find himself at the epicenter of the so-called “Keating 5″ case along with Senators John Glenn, Don Riegle, Alan Cranston and Dennis DeConcini. The five men were accused of violating Senate ethics rules by using their influence to aid savings and loan operator Charles Keating, a contributor to their campaigns, who would later go to prison for fraud. While McCain was thoroughly exonerated of any wrongdoing, unlike his other fellow accusees, he testified against Keating at his trial and from that point on would be at the forefront of those fighting against the so-called “money influences” in Washington.

When others in his party were accusing President Clinton of “wagging the dog” in going to war to stop the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo of Muslims undertaken by Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, John McCain stood up and fought for Bill Clinton as doing the right thing and against the easy conventional wisdom of his own party. Likewise, when the war in Iraq was launched in March 2003 from the very beginnning of it John McCain criticized the president of his own party for not committing sufficient forces to the fight. And he continued this criticism until such time as President Bush finally saw the wisdom of that advice and doubled down in 2007 with General David Petraeus and the “surge” in Iraq that has turned the prospect of certain defeat there into a glimmer of hope for the future even though many Republicans at the time were ready to join the Democrats in abandoning Iraq.

When the conventional wisdom of his party and the Democrats was saying that everything was fine in the red hot real estate markets of 2005, John McCain stood up and fought for reform of the government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who we now know were responsible for so much of the kindling that set off the fire that is now consuming the global economy. John McCain’s was a lonely voice in the corner warning the drunks at the party that tomorrow their hangovers would be hellacious. He was right but ignored and now we’re suffering for it.

Senator McCain’s opponent in this election likes to portray himself as a reformer and a contrarian but his record in this regard consists almost entirely of “talk” with no “walk” behind it. The United States, unlike its parliarmentary cousins, does not elect just a custodian of government machinery it elects a head of state. The world in which we live today is a dangerous one and getting more dangerous by the day. The next president will inherit two wars and be faced with the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran. The Islamic extremist threat from al Qaeda might be diminished in capacity but not in intent. Character and experience matters and John McCain has it in spades while Barack Obama’s resume in this regard is filled with contradictions and little evidence that he would have the type of spine Senator McCain has exhibited since that day forty one years ago when fate would intervene to test him in the most horrific of crucibles a man is likely to face on this veil of tears.

My late father, a regular Navy veteran and in the first convoy into Pearl after December 7th, loved John McCain and gave me Faith of My Fathers, McCain’s autobiography written with Mark Salter, shortly before he would be diagnosed with the cancer that would claim his life in March 2000. My dad was a fighter and a speaker of truth to power his entire life just as has John McCain. The polls suggest that Senator McCain faces long odds on Tuesday. I agree but I will stand with Senator McCain on Tuesday as the best man to lead our nation in these troubled times and if he loses I will join with him in congratulating Senator Obama and supporting him where we can to keep our country safe and great. After all, after this election’s over it’s very simple — “Country first!”

It has not been Barack Obama per se (because I could never give him credit for being that clever) but rather the liberal mainstream media that have succeeded, as in no other presidential election, of drawing shut an impregnable iron curtain between Obama and the truth about Obama.

Their actions – their abject bias – have sparked another paroxysmal event … a turf war of the coldest nature: Americans for Obama openly and aggressively hostile to any and all Americans who are not.

The safety of the United States requires unity. But that unity is falling to pieces because of this new and very ugly cold war.

Leftists, liberals and democrats are married to, but cannot explain or justify, Obama’s brainstorm of an authoritarian agenda to fritter into a general government account Americans’ hard-earned, dream-realized income that will then be “redistributed.”

It’s no secret that some of some of this country’s super-rich, the famous, and the infamous have locked themselves inside the Obama sphere. Don’t they understand that they, too, would be subject to this redistribution plan (the taxable gross income for which has been reduced by Obama and Biden from $220,000 to $200,000, to now $150,000)? That is, unless, he intends to give them a pass.

In any event, they are completely under their candidate’s inexplicable mind-bending control. Under that control their thought processes are locked down tighter than a prison after a riot and have sunk lower than the orlop deck of HMS Titanic.

Conservatives are dedicated to detecting, uncovering and presenting truth. We strive moment-to-moment and day-by-day to correctly identify and bring to light emergent realities facing our country.

Our efforts are similar to those of seismologists who work round the clock gathering crucial data for when and where the next devastating earthquake or tsunami will strike and destroy.

Yet, no matter how many valid warnings conservatives have delivered to liberals or called upon them to acknowledge the perceived dangers, they pretend not to hear or feel the rumbling beneath their feet.

They deny that the current financial crisis was the result of the Democrats’ reckless tomfoolery, and turn their eyes away from the destruction yet on the horizon, which Obama will bring upon us.

Instead, they’re more concerned with seeing set loose that snarling beast called the Fairness Doctrine, which is meant to cut off conservative communications, because our researched opinions are, as much as possible, based in legitimacy.

If Obama reaches the Oval Office and is then able to execute the changes he has in mind, and on the basis of the data conservatives have gathered about him, this country will be hit with a tsunami of insanity, the likes of which this generation has only read about in books written about Socialist Europe and the American Civil War.

His supporters eventually will wake from the spell they’ve been under, which they allowed to be cast over them. They all will discover that they’ve been robbed of their senses and sense of direction, and wonder how they could’ve been so expertly conned.

But the burden of responsibility will be on their heads, because they chose to stand behind a losing proposition.

Only then will they realize that Republicans and conservatives were right, that we were not misguided or paranoid when we tried to do everything in our power to stop the oncoming insanity.

By that time, however, it might be too late, because the liberal mainstream media, via their nefarious dump-truck saturation reporting, had raised the bridge every time we attempted to cross over with the truth.

I’ll say the truth once more:

Barack Hussein Obama is not qualified to be President of the United States. He is desperately short of executive, legislative, leadership, foreign policy and relations, and military experience, because he is a walking, talking intellectual cul-de-sac.

America under Obama and a super-majority Democrat Congress could become like a Nazi Germany or a Stalinist Russia: a totalitarian state which controls everything that is written, printed and read, where all subjects are scrutinized and/or rejected before being produced for television and the cinema, where tax increases will erode our income, where “collectivism” is law, and where objections to such suppression will be forbidden.

The voice of the People will perish under such jackboot regime.

The rights and liberties our founding fathers created to protect and empower you and me are under threat of being stripped away.

The putsch and the pogrom might be resurrected from history’s ashes. Only this time they will be used to harass and persecute Americans.

Is this the America you want to live in? If your answer is yes, then vote for Obama.

Just don’t complain that we conservatives never said, “We warned you,” when those raw, massive, pounding walls of insanity come crashing down on you.

Is John McCain even running for President at this point? Peeking about recent campaign coverage, it would be easy to forget that he is at the top of his party’s ticket, and not his folksy sidekick.

Unfortunately for McCain, his candidacy has failed on two fronts: not only has it furthered a split in the Republican Party between its socially conservative rightwing base and its center, but McCain has also failed to energize the moderates, independents, and ‘mavericks’ he needed to win what everyone predicted to be a close election. This failure is likely to expose a rift in the Republican Party that has been a long time coming.
(more…)

President Bush

Although he denies it, it is often said that Karl Rove’s political idol is Mark Hanna the Ohio political boss who was the power behind the throne of William McKinley’s presidency which ushered in an era of GOP predominance in the White House that lasted from the turn of the old century to FDR’s election in 1932. What is not in dispute is the hope that Rove had for building an enduring Republican majority for the first part of the twenty-first century. This majority was to be built on holding onto the old Reagan Democrats on cultural issues and reaching out to potentially new GOP voters among more successful Latinos and he wanted to use big government to do it. This was to be the essence of “compassionate conservatism”.

McCain vs. Markets

So Rove and Bush never made any concerted effort to tackle the spending side of the equation in their budgets and Bush most tellingly never saw fit to raise his veto pen when the profligate 109th Congress was porking and corrupting its way into oblivion. The Social Security reform plan was designed to appeal (as it should have) to younger voters and move them into the GOP column by allowing them to invest a portion of their FICA withholding taxes in private accounts which over a lifetime of work would have provided the basis for real wealth as opposed to the pittance returned by Treasury securities in traditional SS. The Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, the largest expansion of a federal entitlement program since Medicare’s adoption in 1965, was likewise designed to expand government to the betterment of the GOP politically. And now the dream lies amidst the likely rubble that will be the results electorally for the GOP on Tuesday November 4th.

Now it is arguable that there are many reasons for this. The difficulty of any party retaining its dominance for a period of nearly thirty years as has been enjoyed by the Republicans since Reagan’s first term. And most importantly an economic situation that in its severity always cuts against the party holding the White House. Yet I believe the primary reason is one thing and one thing only and that is the Iraq war. Because while Iraq is now tenuously looking much better and which as a result has taken this issue (the worst for Obama) off the table for the most part as a political issue the war itself is what drove George Bush’s approval ratings into the cellar and along with them much of the GOP’s as well. As Iraq exploded in 2005 any political capital the president had would remained deployed to try and shore up support in the Congress for the war and keep Iraq from turning into another Vietnam. That he succeeded in this against long odds is to his everlasting credit but it bankrupted him for the domestic arena and the attempt to reform Social Security.

How much of the failure of US policy in Iraq prior to the turnaround in ‘06 can be placed at Rove’s feet? That’s an open question that will only be answered by historians down the round but I believe a hint might be available now. Rove assumed his position as Deputy Chief of Staff for domestic affairs shortly after the president’s second inaugural. In that position he was to have a policymaking role for all matters related to domestic affairs including the economy. While I have no proof to back up my suspicions it would seem to follow that instead of reasonably asking for some sacrifices from the American people from a financial standpoint in order to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Rove’s idea of a “guns and butter” approach would have been wholly in keeping in what he considered to be the key to keeping voters happy with the GOP brand. Further, how much can the Fed’s disastrous cheap money policies which contributed to the inflation of the housing bubble be attributed to Rove? Again, I honestly don’t know but what I do know is that this administration’s penchant for borrowing has been enormous.

Unfortuntately for him, John McCain’s shoehorning into the Rove box has proven an uncomfortable fit. McCain, whose instincts are more Rooseveltian (Teddy) than Rovian, in order to placate GOP mossbacks, has been forced into a schizoid general election campaign that echos as a pale imitation of the same old same old standby Bush has practiced. Instead of swinging for the fences with a truly audacious plan like calling for a broadly based carbon tax to be offset by cuts in FICA taxes that would have the dual benefit of both spurring investment in alternative energy sources and giving working and middle class taxpayers real relief from the most regressive of our taxes, McCain is losing the tax issue to a Democrat which is something unheard of for a Republican. And McCain finds himself falling in the polls virtually in lockstep with the decline in the equities markets. Maybe this was simply too much for McCain to overcome but there is no denying that he missed a signal opportunity to point the party in a new direction as I pointed out nearly ten months ago in The McCain Moment and the Future of the GOP. So in this election cycle Republicans find themselves of being in a position to hope only for classic overreach on the part of Democrats that might restore their hopes in 2010’s midterm elections. It’s a far cry from the high hopes that Karl Rove and George Bush believed was theirs for the taking eight years ago.

John Heilemann has a nice overview of the conservative crisis that’s taken over the Republican Party. It’s all good, but this passage provides a nice summary:

With the prospect of defeat for John McCain growing more likely every day, the GOP destined to see its numbers reduced in both the House and Senate, and the Republican brand debased to the point of bankruptcy, the conservative intelligentsia is factionalized and feuding, criminating and recriminating, in a way that few of its members can recall in their political lifetimes. Populists attack Establishmentarians. Neocons assail theocons. And virtually everyone has something harsh to say about the party’s standard-bearer. Election Day may still be two weeks away, but already the idea-merchants of the right have formed a circular firing squad.

When the weapons of choice shift from pistols to Uzis after November 4, the ensuing massacre will be for Democrats a source of political opportunity, not to mention endless entertainment. But for Republicans it will be a necessary passage toward either the revival or reinvention of conservatism. Nobody serious on the right doubts that the overhaul is at once required and bound to be arduous—but it may take longer and prove even bloodier than anyone now imagines.

This is a debate among pundits, for the most part. We’ll see more commentary and analysis on the conservative way forward in the weeks ahead, and of course post-mortems from all sides in the case of an Obama victory.

Meanwhile, Ross Douthat’s had an exchange with Mark Steyn over the idea of a conservative “cocoon” (the walling-off of various ideological factions within the GOP).

Go back to Heilemann’s piece for more background, for example, on the party’s split over Sarah Palin’s pick as GOP running mate. But here’s Douthat, in any case, on how Palin’s appeal to base conservative illustrates this notion of tribal cocoons:

Sarah Palin’s Alaska is not the conservative cocoon. Neither is Tim Pawlenty’s Minnesota, or Mike Huckabee’s Arkansas, or any other place out in flyover country where a populist conservative became a popular and successful governor. The cocoon is the constellation of mutually-reinforcing conservative institutions - think tanks and advocacy groups, talk-radio shows and websites - that can create the same echo-chamber effect that the liberal media has long produced, and that at times makes it difficult for the Right to grapple with reality. The cocoon is the place where it took an awfully, awfully long time for conservatives to admit that the post-2004 crisis in Iraq wasn’t just a matter of an MSM that wouldn’t report the good news. The cocoon is the place where conservatives persuaded themselves, in defiance of most of the evidence, that the reason the GOP lost Congress in 2006 was excessive spending, and especially excessive pork. And today, the cocoon is the place where conservatives are busy convincing themselves that Sarah Palin’s difficulties handling high-profile media appearances aren’t terribly important, that her instincts are more important than her grasp of national policy, and that the best way to defeat Barack Obama is to start with the lines that Palin has used on the stump - Ayers, anti-Americanism and ACORN - and take them to eleven.

Read the rest of it to get the entire flow of argument.

I like Douthat’s writing, although I think folks are hashing things out more than is necessary. Had the Wall Street crash come after the election, it’s quite likely that Demcratic-leftists would be the ones debating partisan “cocoons.”

As I noted previously, this year’s contest is shaping up to be an electoral earthquake. The economic crisis, and historic lows in “on the right track” polling data, have created the perfect environment for the party out of power. Indeed, it’s counterintuitive that John McCain and the Republicans are doing as well as they are. As I argued, a large pick-up for the Democrats in the Congress - especially a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate - combined with a Barack Obama victory, could signal the kind of electoral change the country experienced in 1860 or 1932.

Even in the absence of a partisan realigment (which would be seen in a succession of Democratic victories over the next few presidential elections), there’s certain to be a substantial change in the public philosphy.

I recall, back in the 1980s, reading Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s, The Cycles of American History.

Schlesinger offers a theory of political change that’s less about partisan realignment than about transformations in national visions. Apparently, history moves through generations of private interest versus public purpose, between capitalistic indulgence and democratic involvement. The classic periods of private pursuit were the 1890s and 1920s, which were followed by periods of public purpose in the 1930s, 1950s, and 1960s.

Currently, in many respects we’re still in the long period of private interest that came to fruition during President Reagan’s administration, and hasn’t been shaken loose since. The ideological underpinnings of the Reagan Revolution - limited government domestically, and robust internationalism in foreign policy, with a growing cultural conservative base - are now stretched to the breaking point after two terms of GOP rule, during which George W. Bush discarded any sense of commitment to the small-g conservatism that’s driven much of the activist base of the Republican Party since Barry Goldwater’s campaign in 1964.

In this respect, Barack Obama’s rise to national prominence can be situated in a near-perfect storm of economic dislocations and decreasing public investment in people and infrastructure. The United States remains a center-right nation, but Americans are also pragmatic when dramatic challenges pose dilemmas for the prevailing public ethos.

In that sense, it’s probably less John McCain’s judgment or Sarah Palin’s inexperience, than the overall crisis of conservative ideas and Republican governance, along with the failure to nurture a new conservative philosophy to lift up and revitalize the old.

All this being said, I’m not throwing my hands up at GOP prospects on November 4th. As noted, McCain’s doing better than can be expected, and this year’s got more electoral uncertainties than is usual.

~cross-posted at American Power

Plumber Joe and Barack Obama: The Full Video

This is an excellent video showing the full conversation between “Joe the Plumber” and Barack Obama.  Obama is clearly off script here, because he lets it slip that his tax plan is really to “spread the wealth around” (translation: income redistribution).

Close to 40% of Americans pay no income tax!  So how can someone who pays nothing, get a tax cut?  Answer: They can’t!  It’s really pretty simple.  If you don’t pay taxes, you can’t get a tax cut!

The Wall Street Journal published a fine article this week explaining how Barack Obama plans to give a “tax cut” to 95% of Americans.  It has to do with redefining what a “tax cut” is.  A Barack Obama “tax cut” to someone who doesn’t pay any taxes turns out to be a check from the government.  Call it what you want….welfare, income redistribution, etcetera….but it’s no tax cut.

When you take money from one group and give it to another, it’s called income redistribution and it isn’t American.  Where is the federal government given power to redistribute income?  How do they get to determine how much each person is entitled to?  Why does Barack Obama get to decide what is enough? “$250,000 a year is enough for you, so I’m going to take it from you and give it to someone else.”  I guess the American dream only goes up to $250,000 a year now.

Barack Obama plans to redistribute income and wealth in this country via the tax code and has no business becoming our next president.

Time and again, the United Nations, rather than disavowing, condemning, or defeating genocide, has embraced those very countries that happen to be its worst perpetrators.

One of McCain’s best ideas this election season has been the creation of a League of Democracies.

I am not opposed to Wilsonian Multilateralism (or Clintonian for that matter). However, I do disagree with any nation’s foolish reliance on a corrupt organization that protects genocide while denouncing fledgling democracies. The hypocrisy is staggering.

I’m also in favor of regime change when possible and necessary, and with humanitarian intervention when the stakes are high enough. I do believe government’s such as Sudan under Omar Bashir should be toppled for the greater good. Does this mean we need to invest years and billions of dollars in future nation building as we are now in Iraq? It’s hard to say. Certainly international, bi-partisan cooperation could help hasten efforts in places such as Darfur where the question of saving human life is far more urgent than any question of re-building. This does not, however, mean that we should enter countries without international support or proper planning. The first three years in Iraq should be enough of a precautionary tale. The UN, however, is not an international body willing to act in any cohesive or meaningful way.

Could we blend some version of practical multilateralism with the Bush Doctrine? It seems less and less likely that either way is plausible without some help from the other.

An American Century?

America is in the unique position of leadership under such a multilateral foreign policy. McCain’s League of Democracies may be an ideal vehicle for this hybrid of American power and international cooperation. It is my hope that even if McCain loses–and I believe he will lose at this point–that Barack Obama and McCain put their differences aside to work toward achieving this foreign policy. Bi-partisanship will be necessary in the coming years.

The Bush administration entered the White House intent upon a far less interventionist policy than the Clinton administration–indeed, Bush came across far less hawkish than Gore in the 2000 election, disavowing regime change and nation building. However, the events of 9/11, the fear of WMD’s in Iraq, and the overall growing international tension forced the Bush administration into a foreign policy that they did not initially plan. Indeed, Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives used this to their advantage, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others were more of the Realist variety, reluctant to fully embrace the hawkish policies that the neocons advocated.

This combination of neoconservative unilateralism and more classically conservative distrust of international powers and institutions led to a United States foreign policy that was anything but multilateralist, and oftentimes unsure of the direction it wanted to move. This goes deeper than the obvious disagreements between a Powell State Department and the more hawkish DOD. Indeed, even during the Rice years, State has been more moderate in its approach to foreign affairs.

The “Coalition of the Willing” in Iraq was, and is, a farce save for Britain. This is not to diminish the bravery of the token troops sent from Poland, Italy, Georgia and the other Coalition nations, but in all seriousness, should America withdraw, these troops would be utterly useless. Even the NATO operation in Afghanistan has been rather more a unilateralist approach than it ought to be, with only the Danish and the British contributing much of anything at all to the effort.

Globalization and Multilateralism

It is my hope that whoever becomes President will continue to push a strong foreign policy agenda, especially against the rogue nations Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea (not to mention Russia, China…the list goes on). I also hope that they eschew the narrow unilateralism of the Bush years in favor of a more practical multilateralist approach.

This will take very rigorous diplomacy on America’s part, especially since America has reached new lows of unpopularity and mistrust around the world. Ironically, this has occurred simultaneously with the election of some of the most pro-US European leaders to take office in years. It is a promising, ironic, and dangerous world we entrust to the next American President.

Our allies can live up to that title more in the coming years, as can America, and we can do more to convince other democracies that this war against radicalism, proliferation of nuclear arms, and terror is one that we all must face together. It is a struggle that we cannot face alone, and that our allies cannot wish away. America should lead, but it should not leave behind the rest of the free world. Globalization has changed the game. In a world in which economies are inextricably bound to one another, the question can never only be one of national security–it is international security that must be achieved.

If the United Nations cannot bring this about, effectively abandoning its mission, and choses instead to cater to the tyrants and demagogues rather than uphold the principles of democracy and freedom, then America must find a new way to shore up its international support. We cannot go it alone for another eight years, nor can we fall victim to the easy road of moral relativity, tolerating the dangerously intolerant.

The time has come to throw out both options: futile international efforts and cowboy politics, and to seek out new ways to create a safer, more peaceful world, whoever our next President may be.

~cross-posted at <a href=”http://neoconstant.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/16/2008268-multilateralism-and-the-bush-doctrine”>Newsvine.</a>

Here is an area that John McCain can put his money where his mouth is.  He was one of a number of Republican Senators who called for reform of Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, back in May of 2006.  Notice that the letter is calling for reform and regulatory oversight of these agencies.

The failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a Democrat scandal. Here is a brief time line of the developments over the years:

1977:  Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law.  The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify.   The Premise:  Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.   Despite this act, statistics show that it did not help.

1992:  Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.

1993:  Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies.  This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.

1994:  Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.

1995:  Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin’s Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules.  Robt. Rubin’s Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating.  The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks.  Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.

1997 - 1999:  Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a big way.  Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks.  Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities requiring no money down and no verification of income.   Worse still was the cronyism:  Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats.  384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie.  Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities.  During the 1990’s Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as much as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.

Did it work?  Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority home ownership rates are shrinking fast.

1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie’s excesses.  Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.  “We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks,” Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama adviser (according to the Washington Post), bragged to investors in 1999.

2000:   Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the “special status”.  Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO’s who knew how to reward and punish.  “We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation’s housing and mortgage markets” Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said.  It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.

2001:   Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.

2003:  Bush proposes what the NY Times called “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago”.  Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.

2005:  Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress:  “We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk”.  Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, “If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole”.  Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP of trying to “cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding home ownership”  The bill went nowhere.

2006: Republican Senators, including John McCain, call for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac reform yet again in the above letter from May 2006.

2007:  By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12 trillion US mortgage market.  The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors.  As the housing market fell in ‘07, subprime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses.  The crisis was on,  though it was 15 years in the making.

2008:  McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bush urged reform 17 times.  Still the media have repeated Democrats’ talking points about this being a “Republican” disaster.  A few Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats.

A video from the hearings.

Fannie and Freddie: The real story

Another fairly well done video summarizing the crisis from beginning to end.

The Housing Crisis: Affirmative Action Run Amuck

The fact that the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media are attempting to hang this stinking albatross around the necks of Republicans is just dishonest.  Could 2008 be the year known as the “death of the objective media?”

I just have to say, these are very similar sentiments to my own. At this point, a McCain defeat will actually probably be a blessing in disguise for conservatives. Of course, for the social-cons and others, this will perhaps only spark greater belief in the notion that we need more hard-core social conservatives on the ticket, though perhaps the failure of Palin to deliver will water this down. Maybe that will be McCain’s gift to secular conservatism–picking Palin and still losing may weaken the social-cons’ claims, whereas a Lieberman or Ridge pick would have only strengthened them.

In any case, I look forward to a conservatism that is actually fiscally responsible, that can approach globalism with wisdom and care, protecting American jobs while still building wealth. I look forward to a conservatism that is strong on defense, but not reckless, invested in humanitarian concerns, but not at the cost of American security. I look forward to a conservatism that hearkens back to our Classical Liberal beliefs in equality and freedom and separation of Church and State. I look forward to an acceptance of smart regulation, tax reform, and less national debt (and increased domestic production of goods, and a compassion for American manufacturers!)

I look forward to a divorce of modern conservatism from the chains of hard-liner social conservatism, that has turned American conservatism into Christian populism, and has eschewed elites for “joe six-packs.”

Reagan busted up unions, but also fought for the American worker. Goldwater openly denounced the Christian Coalition. Where has this integrity gone? Have we become so beholden to the Religious Right? to the Banking Industry that has sold our soul to globalism at any and every cost? I am a globalist, but I believe the only way to enter a global economy is with strength and solidarity. The financiers have betrayed us. We can’t even clothe ourselves without the help of the Chinese now…

Conservatism must enter the fire and reemerge stronger, more focused, and leaner. It must accept smart regulatory practices, and pledge to actually limit government. Quite frankly, so must liberalism, which has become vapid and emotional and absurd.

Perhaps a new center will emerge. Smart, lean, strong, and ready to actually work for America. Perhaps.

I suppose lately I am leaning more toward an Andrew Sullivan brand of conservatism–pro gay-rights; hawkish but not too hawkish; fiscally sensible; and not governed by absurd party lines. He describes himself as a Classical Libertarian Conservative.

He views true conservatism as classical libertarian conservative, where economic control of a citizen’s daily life by the government is very limited. However, this style of conservatism differs from classic libertarianism in that some governmental control or regulation is acceptable in order to preserve a functional society as it currently exists. Stances on social or cultural issues, under this style of conservatism, resemble the stances of classical libertarianism or modern U.S. liberalism. While stances on foreign policy are more hawkish than classic libertarianism, this style of conservatism differs from current neo-conservatism and arguably more closely resemble U.S. liberalism from the early 1930s up until the late 1960s. In the foreign policy sphere, Sullivan’s foreign policy views have become somewhat less hawkish following the difficulties of the Iraq War.

And at this point, I’m in almost complete agreement with Sullivan on Obama, McCain, Palin, etc. Conservatives may howl at this, but at this point I think Obama would be a better choice for the country than McCain/Palin. It’s just time, yes, for a change. It’s time to re-evaluate what it means to be conservative, American, part of a global world. It’s time.

I would add to this, though, that I have increasingly become more pro-oversight, pro-regulation as I watch this collapse of the markets.  I suppose I have also become more “protectionist” as I realize more and more that a country with no production capabilities is nothing more than a house of cards….

The problem with running a negative campaign is that it effectively poisons your own base against your opponent.  Now, given that one side or the other will win this election, going on the negative to the extent the McCain side (and to a lesser extent the Obama side) has gone will leave a large portion of the electorate believing lies, untruths, and exaggerations about their next President.

Yes, McCain wants to win.  His supporters want him to win.  But does that mean we should create a climate of fear and hatred over the potentiality of an Obama win?  Should we enter the next four years with a large chunk of the population believing that Obama is a Muslim terrorist?  He’s not.  It’s just ludicrous to suggest that he is, to keep using his middle name in the fashion the McCain camp has been using it.

There are substantive arguments against Obama to be made.  Ideologically speaking, there are valid reasons to not vote for him.  One can argue against his tax policies, his health care plan, his foreign policy, and in every respect formulate a sensible, honest debate, and either convince or not the undecided voters.  Read Ann Althouse for lots of cruel neutrality which includes critiques of both candidate’s positions.  In fact, Ann tends to be more critical of Obama even though she plans to vote for him.

The negative attacks coming from the Obama camp have been more childish, less incriminating.  For instance, Obama foolishly attacked McCain’s inability to send email, which it turned out was due to McCain’s inability to type–he dictates his emails rather than writing them himself.  He’s not a technological dinasaur.  Nevertheless, I hardly worry that such an attack will poison the other side against McCain (though being Republican might!)

I believed that McCain would run an honorable campaign and I was wrong.  I believed both men would raise the bar on how elections should be run, disavowing the ugly Rovian tactics we’ve grown accustomed to.

We had a chance this election to embrace either President, to really move into the next four years as a country of optimists, working together to solve these mounting problems.  It’s quite likely Obama will be at the helm.  Polls and predictions all give him the win, and short of some truly breath-taking Bradley Effect, I believe this will be the case.

The sad thing is, a huge swath of the population will be vitriollically opposed to him, before he even gets out the gate.  That, to me, is incredibly sad.  Obama was wrong: There are two Americas.  And never the twain shall meet.

I’ll say it straight out–the “new” McCain–the sarcastic, eye-brow raising, eye-rolling, spoiled upset schoolgirl McCain–the snarky guy who won’t look his opponent in the eye, condescends, picks unqualified (dare I say dangerously unqualified) running mates in the eleventh hour despite his supposed commitment to our national security–this new John McCain is not the same man he used to be.

Armchair analysts and professional pundits will be dissecting tonight’s presidential debate over the next couple of days. Partisan bloggers, of course, will be spinning their candidates performance and looking for the fatal “gotcha” moments emerging during the exchange.

Frankly, though, both John McCain and Barack Obama performed well, and neither side scored a knock-out punch; nor did either candidate make a major blunder. McCain continues to dominate on questions of national security and he exudes a perennial sense of duty and service to nation. McCain also seemed more intent to launch pointed jabs at the Illinois Democrat; and Obama, in response, refused to take the bait, apparently seeking to stake-out the high-road of a putative front-runner.

Yet, beside the housing bailout and the candidates’ concluding remarks (on the direction for the nation’s future), there was one moment that offered a particularly striking contrast between the candidates.

After a few initial questions on the economy and the federal role in helping Americans through the hard times, moderator Tom Brokaw posed an Internet question on national sacrifice:

Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices - sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we’re now in?

Senator Obama’s response offered a revealing window to his essential dismissal of traditional American optimism and the nation’s history of up-by-the bootstraps perseverance:

You know, a lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11 and where you were on that day and, you know, how all of the country was ready to come together and make enormous changes to make us not only safer, but to make us a better country and a more unified country.

And President Bush did some smart things at the outset, but one of the opportunities that was missed was, when he spoke to the American people, he said, “Go out and shop.”

That wasn’t the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for.

And so it’s important to understand that the - I think the American people are hungry for the kind of leadership that is going to tackle these problems not just in government, but outside of government.

And let’s take the example of energy, which we already spoke about. There is going to be the need for each and every one of us to start thinking about how we use energy.

Take note of this …

Obama says each and every one of us must “start thinking about how we use energy.”

This is Obama’s call for national sacrifice: to reduce oil consumption? Sounds more like an economy-killer, and it refects, fundamentally, the kind of “malaise” sensibility that marked Jimmy Carter’s presidency during the 1970s - a presidency of limits, and limited visions.

Recall, President Carter, on July 15, 1979, delivered his “crisis of confidence” speech:

I know … that government actions and legislation can be very important. That’s why I’ve worked hard to put my campaign promises into law - and I have to admit, with just mixed success. But after listening to the American people I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can’t fix what’s wrong with America. So, I want to speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy….

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.

The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

President Carter - history will recall - was a failed one-term chief-executive, a president stymied in both domestic and foreign policy, and one who’s disastrous leadership on the economy left a long legacy of inflation and unemployment that wasn’t corrected until the Reagan administration’s economic boom of the mid-1980s.

During tonight’s debate, John McCain - in great contrast to Obama - spoke with assurance on the “sacrifice question,” noting:

Look, we can attack health care and energy at the same time. We’re not - we’re not - we’re not rifle shots here. We are Americans. We can, with the participation of all Americans, work together and solve these problems together.

In other words, there’s nothing we can’t do if we set our minds to it. Americans have risen to the challenge, time and again; and when facing rough times, we keep our chins up and barrel through the hard patches.

Barack Obama, instead, announced that we have to cut back, lower our sights - that government will make health care a right and not a responsibility of personal initiative. Obama wants an expansion of government in economic and energy policy, precisely when polls show the country is not looking for a second New Deal.

The American people witnessed a preview tonight of a 1970s Democratic reprise - the comeback of Carteresque crisis and malaise, absent, so far, the cardigan sweaters and double-digit stagflation statistics.

Via the Daily Dish:

Fareed Zakaria:

“In a world of competitive capitalism, you need not big government or no government but smart government. We are not in a race to the bottom, on wages, regulations, or anything else. But we are competing against other countries to come up with the government policies that most effectively foster growth, innovation, and productivity. It’s a time to figure out what works, not what ideological mantras to keep repeating. It’s the age of Michael Bloomberg, not Margaret Thatcher.”

Of course, without Margaret Thatcher (or her equivalent, Rudy Giuliani), there would be no Bloomberg. The “small c” conservative point here, it seems to me, is that policy should reflect changing times. People forget that Reagan’s attack on government was premised on a particular time and place: America 1980. Ditto Thatcher in Britain 1979.

I think most Obama supporters in America would have been horrified at the extent of state power and trade union abuse in Britain in the 1970s. But today, there are different challenges that require different solutions. I’m a free market conservative, but I cannot defend the speculation and recklessness of the financial markets in the past decade. I’m a fiscal conservative, but I cannot defend the GOP in the 21st century. I’m for low taxes, but realistically there’s no way to get back to fiscal sanity without someone paying higher taxes at some point.

Being for Bloomberg now, in other words, does not imply rejecting Thatcher yesterday. The problem with conservatism today is that it has become an ideology or even a theology, immune to the changing times. That’s why it will collapse, and should collapse. And why a new conservatism is waiting to be born.

To which I say, exactly.  One cannot be an honest fiscal conservative and approve of the way the GOP has lead us down the road of Chinese debt these past eight years, asking no sacrifice of the American citizen as we waged war on two fronts, insisting we shop, consume, rack up debt after the attacks of Sept. 11th.  This is not fiscal conservatism, this is rampant capatalism, without boundary or sanity.

What will new conservatism look like?  Not the vision of the paleo-cons, whose philosophy has become so dusty it is almost irretrievably lost, nor the social conservatives whose belief in God I respect, but whose vision of America I think will in the end be rejected, replaced with a more progressive religious view.  I think if conservatism, free market, anti-socialism wants to survive, it will need to adopt some of the liberal agenda.  For instance, social tolerance should and could become part of conservatism, without succumbing to the leftist version of tolerance at all costs.  Why not a conservative version of tolerance, that did not include tolerating Islamic radicals and hate-spewers, but did accept the need for gay rights?

Why not a real health care plan–not the very, very bad (scary!) one that McCain proposes?  I agreed with Obama tonight when he said health care is a right.  It is.  And America can provide it through ingenuity and that very American cooperation between private enterprise and government.  We should begin a national study of other countries’ health care systems.  We could learn a lot.

In any case, I’m just sorely disappointed with McCain.  He has stooped to a level of negativity that I honestly didn’t see coming, that I hoped we would avoid this election.  So it goes.  At the debate tonight he regurgitated more talking points, repeated himself, and at one point referred to Obama as “that one” which was just absurdly disrespectful.  Obama did better, but still didn’t leave me with any more confidence than before.

When it all comes down, Palin has soiled the McCain ticket for me.  I will not be voting McCain in November.  At this point, I’m not sure who I’ll vote for.  At one point, McCain almost represented my vision of a new conservative movement.  Not anymore.

The New York Times reports that Barack Obama leads John McCain 48 to 42 percent in the latest NYT/CBS News poll.

The findings come as a number of other surveys also see Obama emerging as the frontrunner. Today’s Pew Research poll, for example, finds Obama taking a 49 to 42 percent lead among registered voters, and CNN reports that the Illinois Senator’s pulling ahead in a number of key battleground states (Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada and Virginia).

(more…)

Conservatives are quick to discount racism in this current race.  Claims that Obama is the victim of racism, and that this systemic racism is hurting his poll numbers, are thrown out as conspiracy theories–as though America has somehow moved, en masse, beyond the age of racism.

I beg to differ.

While there may be some truth to the conservative claims that racism is not a part of the campaign–and while the Obama campaign should not use the race card as an excuse of any kind–there is more often than not an emotional, over-the-top quality to these accusations from the Right, as though any mention of racism condemns all conservatives, which is absurd.  Conservatives by and large are not racist, just as Americans by and large are not racist.  That does not mean racism doesn’t exist, however.  Obama may very well be justified in saying that racism, should he lose, played a major part in his defeat.  Similarly, Hillary Clinton was correct in her assertion that sexism played a role in her loss.  Sexism and racism are not remnants of a dark and distant past.  Things have improved, but not so much as we’d like to believe.

For instance, my wife and I, along with our daughter and my in-laws all went to dinner at a small Mexican cafe the other night.  My father-in-law brought along one of his friends, a car mechanic.  They had been working on rebuilding an old VW bug, and showed up late.  My daughter is getting her molars, and as such was in a foul mood.

In any case, we ordered, began eating, and inevitably the conversation turned to the elections.  My wife is a definite Obama supporter.  My in-laws, life-long Republicans who have never voted Democrat, are both leaning toward Obama.  See?  There are, in fact, Republicans for Obama or “Obamacons”.  They feel very disillusioned with the current administration, and, like me, with the McCain campaign and the man himself.  My mother-in-law has been a long-time fan of John McCain, but she says she barely recognizes candidate McCain.  I, too, have been a long-time fan of John McCain.

We’re all Arizonans.  We know McCain.  We’ve all voted for him.  He spoke at our local college graduation.  But this guy campaigning for President is like a stranger to us.  I’ve staunchly supported McCain until the last couple of weeks, when I realized what a foolish, reckless choice Palin was for the GOP ticket.  I feel absolutely slapped in the face by the Palin choice.

And I said as much at dinner when we were discussing the Friday debate and the upcoming VP debate.  Predictions around the table: Palin will tank, but Biden will come across as a sexist ass.  No winners.  Only losers.  Kind of like most of the debates this year.

In any case, my father-in-law’s friend finally spoke up when I said I was disturbed by Palin, and said, basically that Obama also has very little experience.

True, I said, but picking Palin betrays McCain’s commitment to national security.  It puts to lie everything he stands for, because she just isn’t ready to be President.

Well, says he, neither is Obama.

Okay, I say, but he seems to at least understand, to grasp the fundamentals of geopolitics better than Palin, who can barely get her words into coherent sentences.  Whether he’s right is one thing, but at least he seems to understand.

McCain will keep our country safer, my father-in-law’s friend says.  We’ve got nothing without our freedom.

Now this is an old line, commonly brought up when Republicans want to defeat Democrats–with the Dems perceived as weak on defense–so weak, even, that we might lose our very freedom if we should elect them.  Of course, this has never happened though there were times during the late 1970’s that the very embodiment of Democratic foreign policy ineptness came to pass–but it seems to be the perpetual threat associated with electing any and all Democrats.  I personally think Obama will take a Clintonian foreign policy approach–plenty hawkish, though perhaps not right away.  Circumstance, I believe, will force his hand.  My friend, columnist Bill Harrison predicts Obama will throw his base under the bus within two years when, he believes, the GOP will retake the Congress.

But certainly Obama is not as experienced or as knowledgeable as McCain.  McCain has an impressive, encyclopedic understanding of our relationship to other nations.

And up until the Palin pick, he displayed excellent judgment, too.  Now I’m back to undecided.

But not the gentleman at the table, who then launched into a little speech about Obama only ever having worked in the Black community for Black people and how that’s all he’d do as President, only ever doing anything to help them.

Them.

This, to me, is racism.  Plain and simple.  This is before the campaign got really ugly, too, prior to the latest Ayers attack ads.  .Maybe I’m sensitive to it because I have black friends, or because my siblings are adopted from Korea and have been subjected to racism often throughout their lives.  My father-in-law’s friend didn’t complain about any white candidates who have, more than likely, spent most of their careers around white people, helping white people and their agenda.  That’s not an issue.  But Obama having worked in a community that was Black seems to be enough to disqualify him as President.

So of course what ends up happening is my wife and the mechanic get into a big debate.  To my wife, Obama has been the more honorable of the two.  To the mechanic, Obama is a liar and a cheat.  To him Fox News is the only honest news station.  CNN, he says, which my wife and I watch, lies.

As a professed moderate, a defense conservative, a social liberal, I have to say this: All politicians lie, and all media is biased.  Including CNN and Fox.  Including McCain and Obama.  I mean, I’m an environmentalist but I don’t believe in global warming.  I’m a free-market guy, but I believe in smart oversight.  I prefer low taxes when and if possible, but I think some brand of universal health care is ethically and morally essential.  With this many conflicting beliefs and ideologies, I find very few pols or media outlets that reflect MY worldview.  It’s pretty easy for most of us to see that these people and organizations have agendas.  It’s harder when they reflect our own agenda so perfectly.

Now, my wife is no fool politically.  She’s sick and tired of the Daily Show because she thinks it’s far too liberally biased.  Then again, she can’t stand most of what she watches on Fox because it’s too conservative.  So the mechanic claiming that she was naive and that he subscribed not to any ideology but to “the truth” was laughable at best.  When anyone claims ownership of “the truth” you can bet that the debate has little distance left in it, little breath.

So here we are with a guy who claims Obama’s entire agenda is based on helping Black people and only Black people; who thinks Palin is perfectly ready to step in and take over; and who thinks Fox News is speaking the Truth.

If I were talking to an Obama supporter who believed McCain was an evil neocon, that MSNBC was the Truth and Keith Olbermann the harbinger of said truth, and who thought that Global Warming was the number one issue in the race (and that war could be solved through loving more and dancing in the streets) I would be just as perturbed.

These extremists do nothing for us.  I want more passion to come from the center.  I believe in using logic to determine what’s best for this country.  Not scripture, not unwavering ideology, not racism or homophobia, not emotive hatred of war or the unreasonable anti-logic of the hardcore green-movement and their scare tactics.  When you peel back the agenda, the fear-mongering, the irrationale of one ideology or the other, you start to see that there are reasons for everything.

There are legitimate reasons to worry over an Obama presidency and legitimate reasons to worry over a McCain presidency.  It has become less and less clear which is more worrisome after the VP’s were chosen.  At this point I feel like neither candidate brings much to the table.

One thing that will most certainly play a role in this election is racism.  That’s just a fact, and it’s obvious when you begin talking with people.  Agism will also factor in.  It does for me.  I think McCain could die in office.  The likelihood is higher due to his age.

For me, that means a Palin presidency, and I’m not sure I can vote for that possibility.  I’m not sure conservatism benefits from that possibility.

Wallstreet today was brutalized by another day of carnage and mayhem.  Scenes of devestation and impending poverty met reporters’ eyes.  It was a bloodbath.

…or was it?

This trader looks happy enough.

Maybe things aren’t as doom and gloom as promised.  Perhaps $700 billion isn’t necessary to bail out failed businesses.  Perhaps bargain shoppers will shore up the market themselves.  Perhaps assets will devalue naturally, and the market will do what its meant to do: stabilize of its own accord.

But would this be a win for McCain or Obama?  At this point, I’d have to say neither….

Meanwhile, back at the farm, McCain borrows Bill Clinton to make a point in this ad:

Thanks to Gateway Pundit for this one.