Me and John McCain Break Up Over 7 Things (I Hate About Him/You)

Once upon a time, when this blog was updated near-daily, with weird Larry-King-like posts, I wanted to see John McCain run for president, so that I could vote for him and Christine Todd Whitman, and life would become better and better every day. Because he was a Responsible Conservative who would Rescue the Republican Party from People like this. And thereby usher in a new era of bipartisanship where Dems and Pubs got along and ate cotton candy and rode ponies together. Pony rides!* In Washington! O what a day it was going to be!!!11!!!!1!

But then something happened. John McCain ran for president again. And he promptly lost his frakkin' mind.

A not-so-comprehensive list of reasons I used to love John McCain but now can't because he believes something completely different now that he started trolling for votes in Hillsdale, MI and Huntington, IN.**:

1) Sen. McCain used to be a fiscal moderate [Part I]. I know this because he originally opposed the Bush tax cuts. McCain on the Senate floor: "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." Now he wants to make them permanent. Ostensibly it's because of the financial mess we're in. And I get that from a Righty McRight-Right perspective. But this is "The Maverick starring Mel Gibson" we're talking about. Why not extend them for another year or two until we're out of this mess, then let them quietly expire, so we can get back to balancing this crazy-ass budget deficit? Or am I making too much sense for you right now, Senator? 

2) Sen. McCain used to have principles [Part I]. He used to oppose the torture of human beings. "We’ve sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists," he said while asking President Bush to support a bill that would ban all sorts of torture for anyone in US government custody, including waterboarding. He even made a good case against waterboarding, too: "All I can say is that it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today…It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." Then he voted against a bill which would have made the CIA abide by the same rules in the Army Field Manuel, which specifically bans waterboarding as an information gathering tactic. I don't get it. I really, really don't. I guess everybody needs a buddy sometime.

3) Sen. McCain used to stick up to bullies [Part I]. Once upon a time, McCain stood up to the NRA. After saying that "the NRA is entitled to their advocacy. I don’t think they help the Republican Party at all, and I don’t think they should in any way play a major role in the Republican Party’s policy making," the NRA labeled him "one of the premier flag-carriers for enemies of the Second Amendment." That is until he spoke these words at the NRA's national convention: "President Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton would put the rights of ‘law-abiding’ gun owners at risk." More buddies! The list just keeps on growing.

4) Sen. McCain used to stick up to bullies [Part II]. Another once upon a time, McCain called a duck 'a duck.' He railed against Jerry Falwell and other leaders of the Religious Right as “agents of intolerance.” After announcing a run for president, however, he delivered the commencement address at Liberty University, Jerry Falwell's school, after which he was the guest of honor at a reception and private dinner which included a number of conservative church leaders. Sure, endorsements are nice. But so are principles.

5) Sen. McCain used to have principles [Part II]. John used to be a big fan of immigration reform, including creating ways for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship without forced deportation. He even co-sponsored a bill in Congress (that eventually failed to pass). This year he admitted that he wouldn't even vote for his own bill today “because we know what the situation is today. The people want the borders secured first.” Mr. McCain, the people are often wrong. Two and a Half Men is the most watched sitcom in America. Yet How I Met Your Mother is clearly funnier. Sometimes, you have to fight for what you believe in. I believe in Slap Bets. You believe in sorting out this immigration mess without resorting to building huge fucking walls along the entire length of our southern border. Good for me. Good for you.

6) Sen. McCain used to be a fiscal moderate [Part II]. He used to argue for the "essential morality" of the estate tax, explaining that he “consistently voted against repealing this tax because of the impact it would have on the deficit, as well as the possible chilling affect it could have on charitable giving in this country." Now he calls it "one of the most unfair tax laws in the book." I like taxing dead people. Because over-taxing the living just plain sucks. We earn what we have as Americans. Everything else is just plain royalty.

7) Sen. McCain used to have principles [Part III]. Sen. McCain used to oppose a federal ban on gay marriage: “The constitutional amendment we’re debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them.” Wow. Now that's great statesmanship. And plausible conservatism in an age when conservatives can't tell whether they love big government or hate it. Yet, one more time, while on the Votes and Endorsement Trail, he told Jerry Falwell he would support a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution if a federal court were to strike state constitutional bans on gay marriage. Not a complete about-face, but he's definitely trying to have his small government cake and eat it, too.

Conclusion: Sen. McCain, I used to love your freakin' guts. Now, I just feel sorry for you. Sorry that you felt you had to turn your back on evertything that made you "you" in order to appeal to the American public, or at least the part of the American public that is pro-America. Because those anti-America parts of the country can fall into the ocean and die. Or they can elect our next president. I forget my point...

Oh, that's right. Sen. McCain, you just lost my vote.***

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

*Pony rides do solve everything. Because ponies are constitutionally non-partisan.

**Town names chosen completely at random, having nothing to do with those two great institutional influences of my formative years.

***Well, you kind of did about a year ago, but you know what I mean.

Sarah Palin, you're breaking my heart.

I love Sarah Palin. She's basically every mom of every friend I had growing up in the Midwest, only way hotter. She's the new face of the new feminism (I can't even remember who the old face of the new feminism was anymore). She's everything Bush Republicanism could hope for in a not-so-much-ugly-old-white-man package. She's funny, she charming, she's got great taste in eye wear. She can shoot a gun and bake cookies and manage an entire state while raising a family. In other words, I want to build a time machine and marry her in place of the that bozo, pretty-boy Todd McGoofyPants. Why should he be so lucky?

But I don't want Sarah Palin to be my vice-president.

Gov. Palin has been/will be the downfall of the McCain campaign. For all the people who love her for all the same reasons I do (but who also plan on voting for her), there are even more Americans who see this selection for what it is: a desperate attempt by the McCain camp to seem younger, less Beltway, and more family friendly.

It's no secret McCain is old. It's no secret McCain has been involved in Washington politics for almost 30 years. And it's no secret that McCain has leaned centrist in the past when it come social conservatism. Picking Sarah Palin was supposed to solve all that. And for the Republican base, it did. But for the rest of America, it pretty much scared the bejesus out of us. I love Sarah Palin with all my heart. But she cannot, under any circumstances, be our vice-president in 2009. And this is why:

1) According to FactCheck.org (and check out their sources for further reading), until Palin became a VP candidate, she had no problems with the types of congressional earmarks John McCain has spent a good part of his career opposing. (McCain is on record as criticising three specific earmarks that went to Mayor Palin's old Wasilla stomping grounds; earmarks secured by a Washington lobbyist hired by Palin during her tenure as mayor.) She also failed to come out against the "Bridge to Nowhere" until after it was dead in Congress. And she still accepted the earmarked, pork-barrel funds anyway, spending them on her state's general transportation budget. We need someone who understands this budget mess. And Sarah Palin is not that someone.

2) Palin (along with McCain) also seriously misunderstands Obama's tax plan. Palin is on record criticising it as "painful tax increases on working American families." This in spite hard data that shows Obama's plan will lower taxes for 81% of all households (and 95% of those households with children), while raising them for those at the top of America's income bracket (those families making over $250,000 a year). Yes, rich people work, too. But chances are Joe Sixpack is making much less than a cool quarter-mil a year. Obama's tax plan takes care of him. And it's time for McCain-Palin to kill this stupid misconception/lie.

3) She has absolutely no experience in either of the biggest problems we are mired in today: managing a messy war in Iraq while simultaneously governing over a sluggish 13.8 trillion dollar economy. At the very least, McCain, Obama and Biden have congressional experience in these matters. Palin has managed the 45th largest economy of the United States of America for 22 months. This gives me pause. And these things tell me she just isn't ready for this position.

Two and half weeks ago conservative columnist David Brooks was quoted as saying that Palin was in no way ready to be vice-president:

"The more I follow politicians, the more I think experience matters, the ability to have a template of things in your mind that you can refer to on the spot, because believe me, once in office there's no time to think or make decisions."

What Brooks is saying here resonates tremendously with me. Presidents need to have wisdom, experience and a worldview in place before they take office, because once you're there, there's little time to formulate these things. You can't be catching up on William Buckley, Russell Kirk and Richard Weaver in the middle of a heated presidential campaign.

Maybe once Palin is safely ensconced in her vice-presidential office, she would have time for such things. But with McCain's age being what it is, she could be called on to serve as president before she is actually ready to be president. And because of that, I can't in good conscience vote for her. We just elected (and re-elected) a president who wasn't ready for the job, and look where that got us. We need to learn from our mistakes and vote for folks with the experience to lead from Day 1. Even Obama, with his political career only 12 years old, is light years ahead of Palin in that regard.

As a country in the midst of a teetering economic crisis, drawn out wars in the Middle East and Asia, problems with a resurgent Russian state, run-away health care costs and record budget deficits, we deserve a presidential team that's up to the task. And unfortunately, with Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket, the Republicans have failed to provide us with one. It's time to look elsewhere for a president if this is the best that McCain and the Republican Party can do.

Where do we go from here?

I had been working on a post yesterday about a recent op-ed piece by Thomas Friedman, titled "Green the Bailout" -- A little ditty that encouraged our government to look beyond the bailout and work toward a Green buildup.  The idea is that plenty of countries do fossil fuel extraction and gasoline fueled autos better than we do. So why don't we switch our focus to the next step in energy -- green energy. If we can't be number one in the old way of powering the World, why not be number one in the new way? Why not replace lost blue collar jobs with what author Van Jones is calling "green collar" ones? It was going to kill.

Then the shit hit the fan and Congress gave into millions of Americans who can't bother to read a newspaper.

Whoops. Guilty as charged. I'm a print-journalism elitist. CNN and Fox News can kiss my ass.

The House of Representatives should be ashamed of themselves. Instead of taking the lead, getting out on the stump, bumping elbows with folks at potlucks and community centers and Wal-Marts all across America, convincing Americans that though this plan isn't perfect, it would help regular Janes and Joes as much as it would help the Big Bad Banks on Wall Street, they sat back and went with whichever way the wind blew. Good job, Leaders of the Free World. You may have just won re-election....but you're completely responsible for where we go from here.

More of the same....but better

Seriously America. Let's all take a deep breath and read.

Issue Is Payback, Not Bailout (NY Times)

Take it away, David Leonhardt:

"The first thing to understand is that a bailout plan doesn’t have to cost anywhere close to $700 billion, so long as it’s designed well. The $700 billion number that you see everywhere is an estimate of how much the government would spend to buy deteriorating assets now held by banks. Eventually, the government will turn around and sell these assets, for a price almost certain to be greater than zero. So this $700 billion is very different from $700 billion spent on a war or on Medicare."

In other words, we'll spend money, but we'll get some of it back.

"Figuring out how much to pay for the assets is the first problem. The drop in house prices and rise in foreclosures have made it clear that these securities are worth considerably less than banks expected. But there is enormous uncertainty about how much less.

Based on the underlying fundamentals (like the current foreclosure rate and the one forecast for the future), many of the securities appear to be worth something on the order of 75 percent of their original value. But thanks to the fear now gripping the market — not necessarily an irrational fear, given that most forecasts have proven far too sunny over the last year — very, very few of those securities are trading hands. Among those that have, the sales price has been roughly 25 percent of the value."

This is a much better way of saying what I tried to explain in my last post. The Treasury (and more accurately, we, the taxpayers) doesn't want to overpay too much more than these assets are actually worth. If we do, we could very well end up losing a large chunk of that $700 billion when we sell these assets back to the market.

"It [The Government] clearly shouldn’t pay 75 cents on the dollar, or anything close to it. That would mean the Treasury Department — which, in the end, is really you and me — was assuming nearly all the risk. But it probably can’t pay 25 cents. That might fail to fix the credit markets, because it would do relatively little to improve financial firms’ balance sheets. Firms might then remain unwilling to lend money to businesses and households, which is the whole problem the bailout is meant to solve."

BUT, BUT, BUT! We can't pay the low price either, because no matter what these assets are worth, if we pay too little, it might not be enough of a cash-kick-start to get the markets going and banks lending and borrowing again.

"The most obvious solution is to pay more than 25 cents on the dollar and then demand something in return for the premium — namely, a stake in any firm that participates in the bailout. Congressional Democrats have been pushing for such a provision this week, and it’s one of the most important things they have done.

The government would then be accomplishing three things at once. First, it would take possession of the bad assets now causing a panic on Wall Street. Second, it would inject cash into the financial system and help shore up firms’ balance sheets (which some economists think is actually a bigger problem than the bad assets). And, third, it would go a long way toward minimizing the ultimate cost to taxpayers.

Why? The more that the government overpays for the assets, the larger the subsidy it’s providing to Wall Street — and the more it is pushing up the share prices of Wall Street firms. As Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, notes, the equity stakes allow the government to recapture some of the subsidy down the road. It’s a self-correcting mechanism."

In other words, if this works, we spend cash, and then down the road, we make some of it back. All $700 billion? Who knows!? But this isn't money thrown down the drain. If we pay enough for these assets to get the economy flowing, but not so much that we won't get a healthy return when we decide to sell, this plan really does become a Payback, not a Bailout.

Now it's time to tell your friends and family. We need to understand this. And then we need to tell our elected officials to get off their rears and make it happen. And hey Obama. Hey McCain. Why you don't you try leading for once? Right now, this hand-ringing, card-holding, who can be more mysterious BS just isn't working for me. Come right and out either fully support this plan or reject it. With words like, "Hey, maybe it's not perfect, but we need this America!" Or, "This a bad idea, America. We gotta come up with something entirely different."

Or just cancel a debate. I know you don't want to embarrass yourself by speaking about economics, Johnny McCain. But this isn't the right way to go.

Blah-Blah, Blah-Blah, Money

Bailout Proposal Gets Hung Up Over Central Issue: Will It Work? (WS Journal)

Yeah, it's a hellova lot of dough. Yeah, it's gonna fall onto you and me (but probably mostly guys like him and him) to pay for it. And yeah, there's the danger that the Treasury might pay too much for these nearly worthless mortgage-related securities; and there's the danger that they might not pay enough for them either, and in turn, fail to jump-start the ailing market. But it's getting harder and harder to borrow on credit. Right now, it's just the big guys who are stuck neither buying or lending. But here's what happens if that trend continues:

• Less credit for homeowners to buy new homes or refinance current mortgages.
  
• Further decline in home prices, as people find it harder and harder to buy a home or keep their current one.
  
• Less credit to buy new cars, borrow money to fix old ones, and hence, get to work.
  
• Less credit for businesses to buy materials and produce goods.
  
• Less economic activity all around.
  
• Slower job growth, as people can't get to work, are busy fighting for their homes, lose their jobs because their employers go under, or a scary combinations of all three.

From the Journal, an op-ed by Kenneth Lewis, one of those overpaid CEOs, who in spite of all that, can still expound coherently why this bailout is good for everyone:

"The proposed rescue legislation accomplishes one simple goal: It provides a buyer (the Treasury) for financial assets that cannot be priced today because the market for such assets has temporarily frozen up, enabling financial institutions to stabilize their balance sheets, regain confidence in the system and one another, and start lending again....In the meantime, consumers [that's people like you and me*] will see value as money starts to flow, home prices stabilize, and the economy avoids what could otherwise be a deep -- and preventable -- recession.

Overblown hype? Probably more than a little. But can we risk sitting on our hands and doing nothing, while we lose the means with which to make home loans, car loans, and business loans which make our jobs work and keep us working?

Mr. Economist, I agree with you. Congress should pass it. And soon.

*Added by me, not that it makes more/less sense with or without it.

Well they're no Jed Bartlett, that's for sure

 

Yes, yes, the sky is falling, but there's still an election going on. So dagnabbit, let's do this.

From the NY Times: In Candidates, 2 Approaches to Wall Street

With both candidates trying to convince America that they hold the answers to all our financial woes, it's worth noting that neither man has much more economic experience than you or I. Both guys have their strengths, to be sure. It's just the economy isn't one of them. From the Times: 

"One reason for both men’s sketchy records on financial issues is that neither has been a member of the Senate Banking Committee, which has oversight of the industry and its regulators. Under both parties’ leadership, the committee often has been a graveyard for proposals opposed by lobbyists for financial institutions, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which last week were forced into government conservatorships.

Industry lobbyists’ success in killing such regulations meant senators outside the banking panel did not have to take a stand on them."

This shouldn't surprise us. It's typical Washington-think: "If it's not up for a vote, why should I care?" McCain seems to be toeing the party line as closely as possible, allowing for greater regulation during times of crises, to be replaced by deregulation as soon as the market rights itself (with nary a thank you to Uncle Sam).

What's wrong with this thinking is that it's essentially reactive. By default, it does nothing to prevent something like this from happening again. Greater regulation in response to the subprime mortgage fiasco is fine and dandy, but we really could have used it six years ago when lenders were handing out shady home loans like candy. McCain, in deference to his esteemed free market colleagues, doesn't seem to get this.

And while Obama has little more economic experience than McCain, at least he sees the inherent value in (continued) government oversight over profit-hungry financial institutions. In that sense, Obama is the truer Conservative on the matter. Conservative because he recognises the depravity of humans to put their personal interests over the interests of others. Conservative because he's not afraid to use established power to keep unchecked greed in check.

{/End quasi-Sorkin clap-trap}

Obamaculator

Change we can all believe in, even if we vote for the other guy (unless you're a richie).

While we've been discussing how you shouldn't trust pollsters, and how voting for one of the Big Two is like voting for ranch dressing vs. thousand island*, here is a story that ignores both from the Nation.

According to a recent Gallop poll, half of Americans expect their tax burden to rise if Senator Obama is elected. Not so according to Tax Policy Center -- an independent, non-partisan off-shoot of the center-sometimes-center-left Brookings Institution -- whose latest study finds that 95% of American families would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan:

Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.

To find out how you would benefit under Obama's plan, check out Obamataxcut.com, a neat-o tax-cut calculator based on three simple questions. And no, not those questions three.

*Which makes sense to me, because both taste terrible; you on the other hand might love ranch, or Republicans.

Sick Around the World

Between this and climate change, you'd think no one in this country had anything above a third grade education.

Run, do not walk, to the nearest computer (I'm guessing you're already there, however) and watch the latest Frontline Doc, Sick Around the World. Whether you've seen Michael Moore's Sicko -- whether you've shunned it outright, whether you've celebrated it with fireworks -- Frontline's short film about Health Care systems around the globe should be required viewing for every registered American voter. And for all you Michael Moore haters, know this: Sicko is to Sick Around the World, as Three Ninjas is to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It's really not even worth comparing the two.

In the film, T.R. Reid travels to five countries -- England, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland -- and weighs the pros and cons about their respective health care systems; including cost to patients, cost to providers, quality of care, efficiency, wait times, and government involvement. There are drawbacks in every system to be sure, but there are things to be learned from each one as well. And very rarely do people, especially poor people, slip between the cracks to fend for themselves.

This isn't rocket science. It's common sense. Our health care system is broken. It's way past the point of ideology (and if you read this blog, you know I'm a big fan of ideology). I don't care about concerns over market intrusion, individual responsibility or anecdotal health-service nightmares. All I care about is that people get sick, and they can't afford treatment. We as Americans spend too much money on medical care, and get too little service in return. Our current system is inefficient, and it lacks any semblance of a moral responsibility to assist those who need it most. In this arena, the free market has proven to be completely inept. We literally turn into gibbering idiots every time we try and argue that health care isn't a basic human right. And there, I said it. Health care is a basic human right. Finally, I'm a complete, flaming liberal.

But think about it. We provide citizens with police and fire protection, whether they can afford it or not. We give kids an education, no matter their family income. Are these institutions perfect? Hell, no. But our streets are policed, house fires don't turn into city blazes, and most voters know a thing or two about civics and the political system. If you don't care for what's offered, and you can afford rent-a-cops and private schools, go for it. But if you can't, there's at least something to fall back on.

Why should health care be any different?

There is no such thing as free universal health care. We'll all have to pay for it, in whatever way we can. But people are sick. And they can't get treatment. What else is there to understand?

Hugo Chavez says: Castro predicted fall of dollar; Also, that I would forget to call my parents last weekend.

File under: Duh.

The dollar could never sustain its monolithic standing as the premiere currency of the world, especially as we near the globalised utopia as envisioned by Thomas Friedman and Ronald McDonald. I bet Fidel also predicted that the Roman Empire would one day come to a terrible end at the hands of the Vandals and Visigoths.

But Chavez couldn't just stick with the obvious: "I think if things continue on like this in the United States, we'll have to start preparing to receive the refugees here."

Oh that crazy, old codger. Refugee camp, here I come!