The issue here is not that Palin didn't know the answer. There are many possible answers to this question, some of which are right and some of which are wrong. The issue here is that she didn't know the question. Because she was apparently ignorant of the subject, she endorsed Hamas' victory, and, in essence, called for the U.S. to "protect" Islamists who seek to use democratic elections to lever themselves into power. And, of course, Ahmadinejad came to power in a more-or-less democratic election. Palin's answer was truly remarkable. A person who could be President of the United States has shown herself to be completely ignorant of one of the most vexing and important foreign policy questions of the day.
I mean, any bank that wants to remove toxic assets from its balance sheet can do it at a stroke -- just declare them worthless, and poof! they're gone. But of course, that would reduce confidence and capital, not increase it -- and that's not what Hank and Ben are talking about. They're talking about turning the assets over to Uncle Sam, and getting cold hard cash in return. And then the question is how much cash they get in return. It's all about the price.
Now, if the price Treasury pays is very low -- anything comparable to what financial institutions are able to sell the stuff for now -- it's going to do nothing for confidence and capital. If the price is high, confidence and capital will improve -- but taxpayers may well take a big loss. The premise of the Paulson plan- though never stated bluntly -- is that these assets are hugely underpriced, so that Uncle Sam can buy them at prices that help the financial industry a lot, without big losses for taxpayers. Are you prepared to bet $700 billion on that premise?
But how can we help the financial situation without making that bet? By taking an equity stake. That way, if it turns out that the feds are pumping money in at above-fair prices, at least they get ownership, just as a private white knight would have.
There is no, repeat no justification for refusing to grant equity warrants that provide some taxpayer protection. This is, for me, an absolute deal or no-deal point.
since obama has been delivering some great lines like "if mccain wants to take on the old boys network he just needs to call a staff meeting"...
and many others...
HOwever, I'd love to see Obama say" if you've seen the movie "wall street" you probably know more about the economy than McCain. McCain just this week discovered that there's greed on wall street. He was shocked I tell you. He needs to rent the movie wall street to get a clue on the economy".
Mr. McCain once was a moderate on immigration -- and steadfast. Now he's slippery. Marching in step with the Lou Dobbs crowd, he talks of border security first and foremost. He says he would have voted against his own McCain-Kennedy bill. He leads a party whose convention platform pushes a hard restrictionist line.
But at the same time Mr. McCain panders to Latino immigrants, in Spanish, accusing Mr. Obama of not being on "our side" -- the pro-amnesty side.
Does this mean that Mr. McCain truly regrets the demise of the "path to citizenship"? That he really supports it, and will push for it harder than Mr. Obama will? Is he willing to stand up to his own party on that?
If he is, let's hear him say so -- in English, too.
The Prius came up again last week, in a interview with WXYZ (Channel 7) in Detroit. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain denied buying his daughter Meghan a Toyota Prius -- a statement at odds with a previous comment he made. "Actually, she bought it -- I believe -- herself, but yes she does have a Toyota Prius because it ... saves on fuel efficiency," McCain said.p>
In October 2007, the New York Times reported he made a speech in South Carolina in which McCain said he had bought his daughter a Prius, after briefly forgotting the car's name. "OK, Prius, Prius," McCain said. "I ought to know the name of it; I paid for it." His daughter Meghan wrote about her Prius in a blog posting on Oct. 9, 2007. "Climate change is a very important issue to me; in fact, there are few issues other than the war in Iraq I find as relevant. I try to do my part by driving a Prius, recycling, using eco-friendly light bulbs, etc. but I know that I can always do more and so does my dad. It may not be one of his most highly publicized issues but anyone who watched the debate or who has followed his efforts in the Senate, would recognize his commitment and passion for the issue of climate change and the environment.
But in fact, the jet did not sell on eBay. It was sold to a businessman from Valdez named Larry Reynolds, who paid $2.1 million for the jet, shy of the original $2.7 million purchase price, according to contemporaneous news reports, including a story in the New York Times.
Dan Spencer, the director of administrative services for Alaska's Public Safety Department, said that the Republican speaker of the Alaska House, John L. Harris, brokered the deal. Reynolds made campaign contributions to both Palin and Harris in 2006 and 2007.
Over time build a narrative incorporating the keating 5, McCain's adultery, Palin's ethics investigation etc...
what do you think should the campaign be using this clip for a web only ad?
Ahhhh, Alaska, the North to the Future state. Where many love to tell us how tough they are and how much disdain they have for the lower 48 and the federal government. That is until it comes to sucking money north to the future from the federal teat in the way of earmarks.
Alaska, which ranks 47th in population is number 1 in acquiring federal earmarks. In 2008, while the average state received approximately $50 per capita in federal earmarks, Alaska citizens received $506. This was thanks to indicted Alaska Senator Ted Stevens aptly named the earmarker in chief. It amounts to 10 times the national average. This makes Alaska the biggest welfare state in the nation.
This year Alaska has requested 31 earmarks worth $197.8 million for next years federal budget. In fiscal year 2008 Alaska received $379,669,715! That is nearly $100 million more than any other state received.
The governor has cut back on pork-barrel project requests, but in her two years in office, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. And as mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million.
Also, I'd love to see Obama's campaign offer a bounty to anyone who can find a video or quote of Palin saying "thanks , but no thanks" before it was killed by congress just to make a game of it...
The fivethirtyeight blog is pretty good on non-conventional insight.
I've had two major complaints with Obama's campaign: 1) playing defense all the time, not hitting first (via free media Ads with no money behind them) and 2) the consultant class schlock that Obama's media people (Axelrod?) put on TV.
One of the more disappointing elements of the Obama campaign has been their advertising, which has tended to focus on fairly conventional, 30-second, issue-based spots. Their ads have been neither creative nor attention-grabbing, in contrast to both their reputation for being a media-savvy campaign, and some of the relatively creative spots put together by the McCain team.
I suspect that the next 2-3 weeks are probably the most important point in the campaign for advertising. Once the debates begin, it will probably be too late to fundamentally redefine either the candidate's message or the opponent. And advertising is difficult in the two-week home stretch between the debates and the election, with campaigns usually constrained to conventional biographical spots or hail mary negative attacks. So now is the time for the Obama campaign to go all out and spend some of those hundreds of millions of dollars in donations they have collected.
I've always said that Obama could pull an ad from YouTube or comedy central put his "approve this message" stamp on it and have more effective ads than what he's done so far.