- If the allegations are true he has a problem with facts, not Spanish.
- It has nothing to do with what I said.
Good grief. Are you serious? Really? You think the two are even slightly comparable?
One candidate makes an ad that allegedly makes some tenuous connections between the other candidate and his party’s President and mouthpieces.
The other candidate doesn’t know who the leader of SPAIN is, even after multiple attempts to prompt him, correct him and outright say, “look, we’re talking about EUROPE here, not Latin America.”
The first might be deserving of a hand-slap for stretching the truth in a campaign ad, the other shows a serious lack of knowledge of world affairs and world leaders, and you think these are in the same universe?
Stunning.
Well, to be fair to ArizonaTeach, the word Spanish does appear in both stories. It could be easy to be tripped up by that.
From the article, that looks like a dirty ad. Or at least, dirty enough to be portrayed as morally equivalent to all of McCain’s garbage. It suits the purpose better than the “computer” ad, which people were trying to shoehorn into that function before yesterday.
However, I think we’ll see a few more like this, as part of a slow, steady stiffening of the rhetoric of the Obama campaign. They realize that dirt will fly regardless so they at least want to be in control of their dirt so that they can defend it.
Yeah, because who knew Spain was in Europe!
Spanish, mexican, latin american…ain’t they the same thing?
Hey, I don’t think so and can’t work up the benefit of the doubt for McC.
One, it is not at all a crazy idea, even if it would not be a popular one at first blush. The tax exemption for healthcare benefits results in the government underwriting the purchase of healthcare benefits for some, underwriting it most to those who need the subsidy the least, less for those who need it more, and not underwriting it at all for those who need the underwriting the most. That’s what is crazy. Eliminating that subsidy by taxing the income used to purchase healthcare coverage, and reallocating it in a more rational manner (allowing instead a tax credit against the purchase of healthcare coverage however it is obtained, work or privately, on a sliding scale against income, more subsidy for the poorest and least for the wealthiest - not exactly what McCain proposes but he’s closer to it than Obama is) would make sense.
Two, better for Obama to act as if McCain has no plan for reforming healthcare than to beat up his plan. Truth is that McCain’s plan, for good or bad (and I think it fails badly overall despite that one feature that makes sense) is a bigger change than Obama’s would be and goes off-message of more of the same.
If only McCain could have learned Latin for his trip to Latin America. You know, for when he visits Spain.
-Joe
Nate Silver’s 538 post today is worth a read.
Yes it is close. But I find some his points very astute.
The average American has the attention span of a mosquito that has feasted on the blood of a hypercaffeinated ferret. The Keating Five, as far as Joe Average is concerned, was that folk quintet that had that one hit that one time that they can’t quite remember.
Not the same thing at all. A brown person who swims over from Spain is an Extra-Wet-back.
I don’t like it, and I especially don’t like the timing of it, while Obama has the momentum. But I think it might be smart in an assholish sort of way.
What can McCain do about it? If he comes out strong against the ad, he is not only distancing himself from Limbaugh but also from Limbaugh’s position on immigration. That’s not going to play well with his base, and all that shoring up he did with Palin might start to unravel.
Or he can defend Limbaugh’s honor and say his views were misrepresented, etc. Then he has to get into what Limbaugh’s views on immigration really are, and where McCain agrees and disagrees with them, and he’s back to the same problem. He also loses some moderates by defending Rush.
It’s a real dick move, but it’s one that McCain might do well to let go.
I agree, on both counts. It is a dick move, my brain tells me. But the GOP has done this sorta ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ stuff to the Dems for decades, and I’m majorly grinning at the notion of McCain having to either defend Rush, distance himself from Rush, or just ignore the whole thing.
Option (c) is the best - for now. But if the ad proves effective and Obama uses the ad in other places, McCain will have to either respond or sustain damage.
What’s really shocking to me is that, if the posted ABC analysis is correct, Obama had to take Limbaugh out of context to make him sound like, well, Limbaugh. That doesn’t make any sense.
How sad is it to be John McCain? When people walk out of his rally AFTER Palin finishes her speech? To add insult to injury, Palin calls it the “Palin-McCain” administration.
I mean, sure it was a slip of the tongue, but come on…the guy can’t fill a room on his own, and when the room is ‘filled’, the audience leaves after is VP is finished speaking.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/18/palin-steals-mccain-rally_n_127480.html
Video and all…
New Battleground State Polls:
Michigan: Obama 50, McCain 41
Ohio: McCain 44, Obama 44
Pennsylvania: Obama 45, McCain 42
McCain suggested that it was wrong for Obama to bring up this mess in the campaign. Taking advantage of a tragedy for political gain he suggested. Weird since the repubs and the captains of finances brought the mess on. If the dems were in charge it would be huge and loud. Now the dems should show proper reverence.
9/11 !!!
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page hammers McCain for his “populist riffing” on the financial crisis. The WSJ says McCain “doesn’t understand what’s happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does” (they had to hit Obama too, I guess, for old times’ sake) and goes on to call McCain’s criticism of SEC Chairman Cox “both false and deeply unfair. It’s also un-Presidential.” The editorial concludes,
They got in one final kick to a Democrat at the end, but still a pretty harsh indictment of McCain. Coming from the WSJ, that’s gotta sting.
To be fair, few (if any) *really *understands what’s happening on Wall Street.
Eh? Even I understand what’s happening, and I’m far from an expert. It’s fixing it that’s stumping everyone 
Well, IANA economist, but let me give it a shot.
Thanks to the trend begun by the Reagan Revolution, continued by Bush 41, Clinton, and especially Bush 43, financial transactions have been decreasingly regulated, almost to the point where there has been no regulation at all. On top of this (or perhaps because of it), our financial system has become layers upon layers, so that your mortgage is no longer your mortgage holder’s loan; it’s bought up by someone else, who in turn probably sells it again to someone else. And the final buyer of that debt may insure it, so that if you default on the loan, the final buyer is covered.
Now, the mortgage market, thanks to the deregulation so beloved by conservatives, were able to start pushing some very iffy loans, lending to people who were really questionable as to whether they could pay back, but at very high interest rates. For reasons that escape me, this seems to have been called sub-prime lending. And, of course, the percentage of foreclosures on these mortgages is much higher than on the usual mortgages, especially since the economy wasn’t doing very well to begin with, due to the increase in the price of oil and a lot of jobs being shipped over seas. The people who okayed these loans in the first place are long gone, because they’ve sold the mortgages to other institutions. It’s the lending institutions and the insurance companies that are getting killed, because they allow for a certain percentage of foreclosures in their forecasting, and this is considerably higher.
Now the market is kind of like Tinkerbell. Every time somone doesn’t believe in it, a piece of it dies. It’s a positive feedback device, meaning the more it goes in one direction, the more it’s likely to go in that same direction. The reason for this to some degree is that these days many people view stocks as something that will appreciate, rather than something that will return income, or at least that’s the impression I have. So the actual value of the company and its business is not very relevant, particularly for mutual fund and pension plan buyers who buy for, say, six months and then shift their positions. They don’t necessarily care what the company is going to make this year; they only care what the stock is going to be worth in six months. (depends on how the mutual fund bills itself here - I’m grossly over simplifying - there are longer term mutual funds, but most people still look at their short term performance when deciding to buy, so they want to keep this quite solid, YMMV, void where prohibited by law) So what’s happening on the market right now is the a couple of banks//mortage institutions and an insurance company found themselves in serious trouble, as in bankruptcy trouble, because of these bad mortgages they had (probably) purchased (rather than issued themselves, because they were probably bundled in with a bunch of perfectly good mortgages). Banks and insurance companies usually have interests in many other companies on the stock enchanges, or hold investments or accounts of those companies. Along with the doldrums the economy was already in due to the high price of oil and the jobs going oversears, this scares people and they sell their stock, afraid that if they don’t, they will lose their investments. No one has yet lost a bank deposit since the Great Depression, but people are skittish. And the Savings and Loan Debacle of the late 80s, brought to you by Charles Keating, four Democrats, and goold old John McCain did cause people to lose money. I personally don’t really know the difference between a bank and a savings and loan - but I’m sure it’s a matter of how they’re regulated and insured.
And that’s what’s happening with the market.
The end.
How to fix it? Well, it depends on whether you think you should fix it or not. I mean, the obvious long term thing is to get enough regulation and enforcement of current regulation back in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the terribly near future again. People will always find ways to cheat or be stupid, but let’s not roll out a red carpet for them.
The less obvious thing is whether or not to fix what’s happening now. Clap hard enough, and Tinkerbell will live. Infuse enough cash into the market and people will return to buying stocks and bonds. The government has done this twice in this month, with the Fannie/Freddie and now with AIG. It drove a very hard bargain both times, it will probably make a profit, and I think probably made the right decision. The collapse of the companies involved would have had extremely wide implications throughout the financial industry.
That being said, I think far too much of our nation as a whole is invested in the sheer manipulation of money. Enormous amounts of money, time, energy and intellect are devoted to producing absolutely nothing of any value - neither goods nor services in any real sense of the word services. It serves no public good whatsoever. It is a tool for the wealthy to become more wealthy.
I’m not sure what impact allowing the FMs and AIG to collapse would have had on the non-financial industries. If the answer is little to none, I’m tempted to say we should have let them go. On the other hand, beyond the financial industry, I’m not sure how much industry we have left in this country at all. Manufacturing is moribund. Most of what remains is services. We must recognize that our labor prices will have to come down, and our standard of living is going to have to come down, and that’s not an easy thing for any of us to accept. The Green subsidies Obama talks about would help quite a bit, especially if they have a ripple effect.