After a day when The Washington Post seemed to make a concerted effort to avoid using “bailout” to describe the bill working its way through Congress, today’s the word is back in headlines and its stories (and here). I guess the reading public didn’t feel heroic and and wasn’t in the mood to help Wall St. “recover.” Jonathan Weisman still likes “rescue.”
Pretty good summary at Politico this week. I agree with most of it.
Biden must be prepared for her to attack both him and Obama. If I were in the McCain campaign, that’s what I’d do. An assault on him by her would likely throw him a little off balance if he hasn’t considered the possibility. It would be the best way to keep the focus off herself. But certainly you would expect him to be prepared for her to make this debate not about her, but Obama. As as he’s surely been advised not to patronize her, if cornered, he might stumble, afraid of appearing condescending or dismissive of a woman candidate. Forcing him to defend his or Obama’s positions leaves less time for her to put her foot in her mouth.
Otherwise, not attacking her is probably smart. Let her dig her own hole, at which she has proven adept. But he should take advantage of the two minute discussion period by, as one debate preparer suggested, by asking her what she thinks. Biden’s problem will be to leave enough of the two-minute period for her to respond. Keep it short, Joe. She’d be smart to ask him what he thinks. Those two minutes would disappear.
It would be a mistake for him not to engage Palin directly, without referring to any of her previous gaffs. If he disagrees with something she says, he should say so — directly to her. Otherwise, he would be accused of being as dismissive and disrespectful to her as McCain was to Obama. And when asked to respond to something she says, I’d repeat the phrase, “If I understand Gov. Palin….”
I agree that McCain is his real target because if anyone has the experience and credibility to question McCain’s positions and temperament, it is Biden. He should provide clear examples of McCain’s behavior and votes in the Senate. Questioning McCain’s temperament, which Obama signaled in his acceptance speech, will be central to the rest of the campaign.
Biden can also provide confirmation of Obama’s work in the Senate by referencing their work together on the Foreign Relations Committee, of which Biden is the chair.
Biden’s blue collar roots should be highlighted as Palin will certainly emphasize that part of her biography. And it’s not just about Biden’s roots but Obama’s. Again, he can testify to Obama’s views and how they were sculpted by his upbringing. In fact, he should find an opportunity to explain why McCain can’t identify with the middle class. He was the son and grandson of an admiral, a son of privilege, who leveraged that privilege into an appointment to the Naval Academy where he was, as we all know, near the bottom of the class. Now he’s a rich man with a house or two. He’s never been in the middle class.
The bar is now set so low for Palin that Biden would be well served not to worry about how she comes off but rather reinforce his reputation as a thoughtful leader in foreign affairs. For the most part, the VP debate is even less than a warm bucket of spit. “You’re no John Kennedy” didn’t stop Dan Quayle from being elected VP.
And given the criticism moderator Gwen Ifill, don’t expect much help from her. I respect her, but my guess is she’ll tread lightly. That pre-censorship is something conservatives are good at engendering by criticizing the press. Those tough reporters tend to have thin skins, according to Howard Kurtz, “…some journalists say privately they are censoring their comments about Palin to avoid looking like they’re piling on.”
I’ll be holding my breath tomorrow night, not when she speaks, but when Biden does. Please Joe, resist the flip ad lib.
The Washington Post clearly caved — to whom isn’t clear — to forces wanting to call the $700 million bailout bill a “rescue.” Clearly, the Wall Street Journal has followed suit today with its lead story.
I counted more than a half dozen references this morning to a rescue package and not a single reference by reporters to a bailout. Why the change?
The right-wing talking heads on CNBC, which I think fairly represent the views of Wall St., have been calling for the rescue term instead of “bailout.” It has a nicer ring. A rescue does not connote any malfeasance. It also is an action verb of a heroic actor. The taxpayers are coming to the common good rescue of the Wall St. damsel in distress. Bailout, in its common usage, suggests some who would think that we should let the perpetrator sink. Guests and the so-called reporters on CNBC have been arguing that the economic repercussions of the credit crunch demand that we not call this a bailout, because it’s not, they say. There’s no doubt that government, i.e., taxpayers, must do something or else the economy will be under tremendous distress. Whatever the “good” reasons might be, the fact is that many on Wall St. will be sheltered from their own greed and stupidity as a result of this plan.
It’s not just the CEOs who are to blame. Complicit are those who worked for the banks and investment firms. They must have known they were playing with a house of cards. They were rewarded handsomely. I have no sympathy for Bear or Lehman workers. Maybe next time, they’ll get an honest job.
But it’s not only Wall St. who wants the “rescue” terminology.
Campaigning in Nevada on Tuesday, Obama rejected the loaded term “bailout” — a phrase that has been abandoned by the White House because of the connotation that it would help the perpetrators of the meltdown — and said that if the plan were designed to save “a few big banks on Wall Street, it would be one thing.”
“But that’s not what it means,” Obama said. “What it means is that if we do not act, it will be harder for you to get a mortgage for your home or the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. . . . Millions of jobs could be lost. A long and painful recession could follow.”
He attempted to reframe the bill from the idea of just handing $700 billion to Wall Street, and he said the plan had been “misunderstood and poorly communicated.”
“When it’s called a bailout, nobody is in favor of a bailout,” Obama said.
John McCain made the same argument yesterday.
So it’s not clear why The Post has decided to change terminology. I may be that the support of Wall St. and the presidential candidates is enough. Damn the readers and taxpayers. Or it may have bowed to pressure of its advertisers, including a coalition of business groups who took out a full page ad (A9) today to call on Congress to pass, not a bailout plan, or even a rescue plan, but a “recovery plan.”
When will The Post start calling it a recovery plan?
For those who know a bailout when they see one, read the New York Times. Today, they still call a bailout a bailout. How quaint, eh?
———————————————————————–
The House Republican caucus slammed Speaker Pelosi for her speech on the House floor before the vote today on the Wall St. bailout bill. In part she deserved it. The problem was her beginning.
“Madam Speaker, when was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion?
It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration’s failed economic policies–policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.”
In some ways, Pelosi is the Democrats’ John McCain. She doesn’t seem to know when to fight, re-group, concede or surrender. When you’re trying to get votes of ideological Republicans who rightly hate the bill, don’t stick a poker in their eye.
The rest of speech did not attack the GOP, but it didn’t offer an credit to Republicans who negotiated in good faith and were prepared to vote for the bill.
All that said, can it be that some Republicans voted against this bill because their feelings were hurt?
—————————————————
Update: I had heard only part of Pelosi’s speech live and relied on a written text. However, the copy Pelosi’s office distributed was not the speech she gave. Or more precisely, she embellished it with more partisan remarks. Among them:
“When President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton’s surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses, on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies within two years, he had turned that around … and now eight years later the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything-goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today. They claim to be free-market advocates when it’s really an anything-goes mentality, no regulation, no supervision, no discipline. …”
“… Democrats believe in a free market … but in this case, in its unbridled form as encouraged, supported by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos.”
She is even more tone-deaf than I originally thought.
In the U.S., some churches want to feed at the public trough while preaching politics from the pulpit, …
Defying a federal law that prohibits U.S. clergy from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit, an evangelical Christian minister told his congregation Sunday that voting for Sen. Barack Obama would be evidence of "severe moral schizophrenia."
…while others see seem focused on more traditional Christian principles.
Last week, the two most senior leaders of the Church of England weighed in with stinging critiques of a financial culture they said had enriched a minority at the expense of society.
In a speech to a bankers group Wednesday, John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, said: "We find ourselves in a market system which seems to have taken its rules of trade from 'Alice in Wonderland.' " He referred to traders who profit from the losses of others as "bank robbers and asset strippers."
The archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, writing in the Spectator magazine, said that while making a profit is a legitimate goal, abuses of the financial system can cause "real and crippling damage" to people and institutions. He wrote that "almost unimaginable wealth has been generated by equally unimaginable levels of fiction, paper transactions with no concrete outcome beyond profit for traders."
I thought Barack Obama lost the debate. Fortunately just on points. It wasn’t a knock out.
First the obvious. McCain may be right about a few things. But please, Senator Obama, don’t keep telling the American people that. This is a problem for not only Obama but of progressives in general. Liberals are by definition willing to listen to others and respect their views. They try so hard to be nice that they can’t pull the knife. More important, once they draw the knife, they can’t put it in the gut. Every time Democrats tells Americans that we should honor McCain for his service and agree that he is right, they simply reinforce the message that he is honorable and right. Let him make the argument. By now, Obama has inoculated himself against attacks that he dishonors McCain’s inability to fly a plane. Let’s have a moratorium on praising John McCain. Besides, he certainly hasn’t reciprocated.
GOP message discipline is much stronger: “Obama doesn’t understand,” said at least eight times. Consequently, Obama spent his time trying to convince people that he does understand. That he in fact succeeded in that is some consolation, but it took time away from attacking McCain and from setting out a vision and a frame for this election.
Both candidates dodged questions they should have answered head on. It isn’t necessary to go through a long list of things that might have to be curtailed due to the costly bailout.
But they could have mentioned one item to show they aren’t afraid of tough questions. “Due to this reckless eight years that John McCain has been complicit in destroying the American economy and the $700 billion of taxpayer dollars we now must spend to prevent an economic collapse, I would probably have to delay some of the infrastructure projects I’ve proposed.”
And end it there. People would remember not what you would delay, but the indictment of McCain’s economic philosophy. More important, it bolsters the image of responsibility and candor.
Another point Obama needs to begin to plant in anticipation of victory and a credible infrastructure program is to challenge business. “The American people are going to be making a lot of sacrifices due to the irresponsibility of many of the titans of business. Once we start bidding on infrastructure projects, I’m expecting those in the business of building those roads and bridges and electrical grids to give the American people an honest and fair bid, something we’ve not gotten from too many contractors, especially defense contractors.”
Obama also missed many opportunities to remind voters of McCain’s deregulation philosophy. He should have repeated that as often as McCain said Sen. Obama doesn’t understand. If he’d been thinking quickly, Obama should have adapted the line himself, “Sen. McCain doesn’t understand how much his deregulation philosophy has destroyed our economy and the middle class; but then he has admitted he doesn’t understand a lot about economics.”
Obama made the point only once when he reminded viewers that the middle class was hurting before the financial crisis and that they have been in crisis at the end of every month. In fact, a communication point Obama should repeat is how no one got exercised about a financial crisis until Wall St. was hurting, while the middle class has been hurting for 12 months.
It was a mistake that Obama didn’t engage McCain immediately. I’m not sure why he was at first reluctant to talk directly to McCain, who of course, never did so. He should have looked at McCain at the very first attack. By repeatedly looking at him and indeed asking for McCain response, he might have forced McCain to lose his temper. It would also made Obama look strong, a fighter. In fact, it would have been a good idea for Obama to ask him a question and demand that he look at him with the answer. McCain was obviously told not to engage him, and he would have probably followed the orders right off the cliff.
When Obama talked about McCain’s tax cuts, he needed to use more numbers to make the case stark. For example (I’m making up the numbers): “My tax plan would reduce taxes for everyone making less than $250,000. My opponent’s tax plan gives the top 5% 95% of the tax cuts. Under my plan people making less that $50,000 would get at $2,000 tax cut. Under my opponent’s plan, they would get $50. Stay away from the macro numbers and focus on specific price points that make your case.
The pork barrel argument is a winner for McCain. Obama should have pointed out how much pork Palin has gotten. “John, you and your running mate say one thing and do another. But I tell you what, Sen. McCain, I’ll cut the $18 million in pork if you’ll cut the $1 trillion dollars on the Iraq War.”
And he needed to show that he was mad about it and that the middle class is livid about it. Obama should have said that for eight years of the Bush Administration John McCain had a chance to call for spending cuts and didn’t, voting with Bush 90% of the time. “You’ve come to spending cuts just as this campaign started.”
Obama was much better in challenging McCain over his judgement going into Iraq. Every time McCain talked about “winning the war,” Obama should have responded, “It cost 4,000 American lives, 30,000 wounded and nearly a trillion dollars just so McCain can say he won a war we didn’t need to start.”
A tactic Republicans use in debates, including the talk show food fights, is to dominate the time. I was surprised that Lehrer said at one point the time each spoke was even. Perhaps, but did you notice that McCain usually got the last word? When I judge a news story, either on TV, radio or in the paper, I look first at the headline, next the lede and then the closing paragraph. What’s in the middle doesn’t matter as much. Why? Most people just see the headline. Own it. Those who just want the high level message read the headline and the lede and a paragraph or two. And those who want it all, remember the headline, the lede and the close as it’s the last impression that is critical. And McCain always got the last word. Obama can’t continue to let that happen.
Obama needs to attack McCain from a higher plane. By that I mean a response to McCain’s “spending freeze” idea is to say, “John, for 40 years you Republicans always talk about spending cuts without saying what you’ll cut. Why? The American people are beginning to understand that when you guys cut, you cut middle class help, you cut incomes for the middle class, you cut support for those who’ve work hard all their lives and played by the rules, while you keep giving no bid contracts to defense contractors and keep giving huge tax cuts to the oil industry and those who make millions on Wall St. while destroying the middle class’ next egg. After 8 years of spending cuts, we all know who gets mortally wounded.
“You can’t regurgitate old ideas of, quote, spending cuts except for military and veterans. It’s simplistic thinking. First, building a strong military doesn’t mean we have to give no-bid contracts for every program or weapon the military wants.
“Second, there are a lot of hard working people who also have been casualties. Casualties of another rigid, old idea you have been hiding behind ever since you came to Washington: deregulation. We know what that means. It means big business, especially Wall St., gets to do whatever they want until they screw up. Then it’s heads they win, tails, the middle class not only has to bail them out to the tune of $2500 for every man, woman and child, but then programs that help the middle class become, quote, spending cuts.
“It’s time we had a little more honest discussion about what you’ll cut.”
(It’s no accident I use “old ideas.” )
Then he needs an anecdote. Certainly, he has been told a story that everyone will know at least someone with a similar story. Sometimes, I sense that progressives get a little squeamish when they get too personal. They feel they’re manipulating public opinion in a maudlin way. Get over it. It works. Joe Biden knows.
While the instant polls gave Obama an advantage, I’m not so sanguine. He showed a knowledge of foreign affairs. I think he helped assure some folks he could be less risky that they first thought. But Barack Obama is smart enough to win this going away. But he’ll need to trust his gut when he speaks extemporaneously, rather than appear to parse every statement, afraid to make a misstep.
And please, Sen. Obama, get mad. Those who will see an angry black man aren’t ever going to vote for you anyway.
Earlier studies — including a joint Pew-AP report two years ago — concluded that cell and landline users had similar enough views that not calling cell users had no major impact on poll findings. The new report concludes that "this assumption is increasingly questionable," especially for young people, who use cells heavily.
Combining polls it conducted in August and September, Pew found that of people under age 30 with only cell phones, 62 percent were Democrats and 28 percent Republicans. Among landline users the same age that gap was narrower: 54 percent Democrats, 36 percent GOP.
Similarly, young cell users preferred Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama over Republican nominee John McCain by 35 percentage points. For young landline users, it was a smaller 13-point Obama edge.
As the outline of the $700 billion bailout come to light, we’ll hear more about the impact of limiting CEO pay for those companies that sell their non-performing securities to the American taxpayer. The most frequent argument against any such limitation is that it would discourage some companies from participating in the program.
If I were a director of a public company whose CEO was making decisions solely on the basis of the impact on his or her salary, I’m not sure I’d stand by while the company absorbs the losses or, indeed, folds due to the selfish interests of the top dog. The argument doesn’t make sense. Or if it does, it says something disturbing about our brand of capitalism and public companies. Why is it in the interest of stockholders that their CEO keep his multi-million dollar salary, bonus and parachute if it means the business will suffer?
The imbedding of friends of the CEO on corporate boards is, if not the root of the problem, certainly it is one of the main causes. The argument that boards must offer outlandish pay packages to attract top talent is suspect. My guess is there are many people in the upper and mid echelons of most corporations who can effectively run the company and would be happy to do so for less than $25 million.
Moreover, the method for choosing CEOs defies logic. Consider Bob Nardelli. He was CEO of Home Depot for about six years. During that time, shareholder values was cut at least 25%. When he was fired, he walked away with a $250 million parachute. Then he was hired to run Chrysler. By then Home Depot had lost another eight percent. What exactly qualified a guy who couldn’t run a home improvement concern to be CEO of an American icon? Perhaps it’s hubris. Now he wants a government loan to bail out the struggling automaker.
Maybe the idea that the CEO should be accountable, especially if taxpayer dollars are at stake, is a quaint one. But it’s an idea worth considering before we sign the check.
Ah yes, blogging here at Commonwealth Commonsense until almost two years ago when I stopped for a couple of reasons. I’ve had many more reasons not to start up again. But I’m tired of yelling at the TV and crumpling the newspaper over inane political spin and what I see as poor journalism. But as much, I’ve missed the daily exercise of writing.
That’s not to say that I’ll be blogging anywhere near as much as I used to when I started CC in 2004, or that I’ll focus on only politics and the press. Other things are occupying my time and mind, some of which I hope will be fodder for this blog. In fact, I may start another blog for some of those topics. But for now, they’ll appear here.
A word about comments: I’ve set up the system that I hope will eliminate spamming. I’m also going to ask that anyone who comments identify themselves. No anonymous comments or even nom de plumes.
Peter Baker continues his string of good reporting in today’s Washington Post. Why is it good? Because he’s not a stenographer. He looks behind the statements — a one-man truth squad.
As Bush wound up a three-day campaign swing out west on Wednesday, for example, he attacked Democrats for voting last week against legislation authorizing warrantless telephone and e-mail surveillance.
“One hundred and seventy-seven of the opposition party said, ‘You know, we don’t think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists,’ ” Bush said at a fundraiser for Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) before heading to Colorado for gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez.
Asked about the president’s statement, White House aides could not name any Democrat who has said that the government should not listen in on terrorists. (emphasis added) Democrats who voted against the legislation had complained that it would hand too much power to the president and had said that they wanted more checks in the bill to protect civil liberties.
Yesterday, he took on Bush’s cheap “cut-and-run” shots.
While saying he does not question their patriotism, Bush paints Democrats as a “cut-and-run” party that enables terrorists.
His indictment centers on three pieces of legislation: the USA Patriot Act expanding law enforcement powers; a measure authorizing warrantless surveillance of telephone calls and e-mail into and out of the United States when one person is suspected of ties to terrorists; and legislation creating military tribunals that restricts the rights of terror suspects and permits harsh interrogation to extract information. Noting that Democrats supported the Patriot Act in 2001 before filibustering its renewal last winter, Bush said, “They voted for it before they voted against it.”
Bush’s language, though, characterizes Democratic positions through his own prism. Critics of the surveillance program have not argued (emphasis added) against listening to terrorist phone calls but say the government should get warrants from a secret intelligence court. Likewise, many critics of the tribunal measure did not oppose interrogating prisoners generally, as Bush said, but specific provisions of the bill, such as denying the right of habeas corpus or giving the president freedom to authorize what they consider torture.
It’s critical that reporters challenge statements made by politicians, especially those such as Bush who regularly suspends reality and ignores what opponents really said and simply puts words in their mouths.