I can’t pretend to be unbiased here; I’m for McCain. But as I watched the debate I tried my very best to be objective about the candidates’ performances, because a debate is first and foremost theater.
Part of the time I listened rather than watched. Continue reading →
Yesterday I wrote about whether McCain and Obama were playing politics in their responses to the financial crisis and the scheduling of the first debate. My answer was that of course they were, but that there is principle and personality involved, as well.
Now, as we await further word on whether Congress can finally get its act together and agree to a package that will calm Wall Street while simultaneously protecting the American people from having to foot a huge bill (and perhaps, dare we ask, to prevent future crises of a similar nature from getting to the point of needing such heroic measures), we hear that the Presidential debate is on tonight.
Good, fine, whatever. The timing of the debate is a matter of little consequence, IMHO. Continue reading →
I was sent the following photo with a request that I offer an explanation of this riveting ballet tableau:
I would be only too happy to oblige. Continue reading →
…is power, quoth Henry Kissinger.
An example of the truth of that principle is this photo of Henry K. and Sarah P. hugging (or is it kissing? Is Henry Kissinger kissing her?) last Tuesday:
Mighty suspicious, I think:
Compared to her 20-minute meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and 30-minute meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Palin spent an hour and a half with Kissinger—much longer than scheduled.
…”years of irresponsible failure to regulate have led us” to this crisis.
He fails to add the little detail that the “irresponsible failure to regulate” was his own, as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, when he was the leader of attempt after successful attempt to block Republican calls for better regulation of Fannie and Freddie.
Fox News points it out, but how many people know? And Frank counts on most of the MSM to cover his sorry butt, just as the Boston Globe does here.
Monica Crowley was also on the minute or two of Fox cable news where I just viewed the hypocritical Frank quote. She was spitting mad, as am I. Crowley said,
“They [Frank and Chris Dodd, his Senate counterpart] should be going around Washington with bags over their heads.”
Are Obama and McCain playing politics right now?
Of course they are; is the Pope Catholic?
What’s far more interesting to me is how they’re playing, and what this reveals about their natures. Continue reading →
Bush’s speech last night was a good attempt to explain in relatively simple terms how we got here and what Bush thinks should be done.
I’ve started to visualize the whole meltdown this way: Continue reading →
I know that a certain number of these bad mortgages were made in response to initiatives started in the 90s to allow low-income families who otherwise couldn’t afford homes to own them. But what percentage of the current crisis involves loans of this particular type?
And what percentage involves people who actually have a good income and could afford some sort of decent home but who bought a far more luxurious home beyond their means, counting on refinancing when the value of their home inevitably [sic] went up?
And what percentage involves speculators who bought homes other than primary family residences, hoping to flip and make a quick profit?
And what percentage of each type of mortgagee ended up defaulting?
And is there any way to discover any of this?
It seems that if blame is to be apportioned and remedies found, we need to better know what we’ve been dealing with here.
I’ve long admired Victor Davis Hanson’s work. In this piece, one of his very best, he nails those who think academic credentials are the true indication of intelligence.
Hanson’s background growing up in rural California, combined with his stellar university career and experience with professorial types, combine to give him an unusual perspective on the comparison between the two worlds and what sort of intellect is demonstrated by those in each sphere.
The impetus for the Hanson piece is the astonishing condescension—and downright contempt—displayed by so many supposedly well-educated people towards Sarah Palin because of her alleged lack of brainpower and her non-elite education. Continue reading →
Send this to everyone you know. It’s short and sweet.
This is also worth a view. Or two.
[Hat tip: The Anchoress.]
It’s been shaping up for quite some time now—the Democrat explanation in the event of an Obama loss.
Of course, if Obama should win the election—a distinct possiblity—excuses will not come into play. It will be the Republicans who will have to regroup. But in the case of Republicans I think there will be no mystery: Bush’s enormous unpopularity, and the tendency of Americans to want change after many years of a single party in office, are explanation enough. Some will also feel that Republicans would do better to run a “true” Conservative, whatever that is. Whether correct or not, this is at least a theory that has to do with issues and political philosophy.
When Dukakis lost in 1988 Democrats seemed to be fairly realistic in their reactions, perhaps helped along by the fact that his loss was so definitive. Continue reading →
This sort of thing is why I kinda sorta like Joe Biden.
But not enough to vote for him.