Congress was incredibly preoccupied during the weeks following its lengthy vacation, and could not (supposedly) get the work done to extend the moratorium on drilling for this oil.  Such a ban would normally have been included in the $600 billion stopgap funding bill passed last week, but would have likely led to a fight that would have shut down the government.  Instead of chasing that fight, they’ve left it up to the next Congress to address this issue.  Keep that in mind on election day.

Tomorrow (October 1) is known by many now as Energy Freedom Day.  This might be temporary, but we’ll take what we can get.

It’s very likely that Democrats could sense which way the winds were blowing and sought to soften their position in an election year where necessary.

The price of crude went back up today, back to $102/bbl.  It will be interesting to see how the price moves on Wednesday, and what gestures, even if symbolic, are made by oil companies to move toward drilling.

And maybe the next stop is ANWR.

Two Different Versions! Two Different Morals!
 
OLD VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
 
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
 
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
 
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself! 
 
——————————————-
 
MODERN VERSION:
 
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
 
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
 
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
 
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
 
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
 
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green.’
 
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, ‘We shall overcome.’ Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake.
 
Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
 
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
 
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
 
Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.
 
The ant loses the case.
 
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around him because he doesn’t maintain it.
 
The ant has disappeared in the snow.
 
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood. 

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2008. 

I hope no one gets the idea that I don’t want to help people in need, I really do.  But teaching people to demand the government do everything for them is wrong.

MIchelle Malkin wrote her own version, which you can see here.  Read it, it’s good.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Today did not scare me.  It did surprise me, because I didn’t think that Congress had the ability to face down the President, Treasury Secretary and their own part leaders all at the same time.  (For the votes of the Representatives from Iowa, see below, or this link for the roll call vote).

I am so proud of them!  From the above Reuter’s article:

“This isn’t legislation. This is extortion,” said Florida Republican Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite. “This is so embarrassing it turns the stomach of most Americans.”

That pretty much sums up my thinking on this.

As I mentioned yesterday, I think we should seriously consider turning this bailout into a bond issue, and perhaps force some of those who have been steering these ships to buy and add the bonds to their retirement packages.  Instead of selling taxpayers a bill of goods, sell these instruments back to the people that brought them to us, and maybe they might do some things to help make sure the instruments become profitable.

So, the Dow dropped 748 points by the end of the day, it’s largest one-day point drop ever, and yet the ground did not open and swallow me up.  It almost seemed like just another day.

And the biggest surprise to many who have been watching oil prices jump in the opposit direction of the stock market on most days was a $10.52 drop in the price of oil.  We are at $96.37!

And, according to gas-cost.net (widget found in the middle column of our page), the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline is now $2.76.  We are defintely going in the right direction on gas prices.

If only that were enough.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I know this is going to be a tough week.  And frankly, we’re probably in for a tough time for quite a while.  It makes no sense to me to draw out the inevitable events and put them on out children’s shoulders instead of taking it on ourselves.

This generation’s ability to suck it in and work through this problem, regardless of whether it ends up as a regressive blip or a deep depression, will be a key test for our society.  Our survival may depend on our ability to live with less, to accept failure, to put aside our selfishness and work (and I mean WORK) to rebuild and help our neighbors through the difficult road ahead.

Something we’ve been trying for decades to ensure we would never have to do.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

If you think me a fool for not being scared by all of this, perhaps it’s true.  But I do know the one who owns it all, and I believe He is in control.  That doesn’t mean we won’t have bad times, but I believe God has a plan.

And DJ won’t argue against that, I assure you.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For those readers from Iowa, here is how our Congressmen voted:

Braley (District 1): No

Loebsack (District 2):Yes

Boswell (District 3): Yes

Latham (District 4): No

King (District 5): No

Doesn’t look very bipartisan to me.

Update: Added link to roll call vote.

Iran

Lehrer asked for a “reading” of Iran by the candidates.  Are they a threat?  Both candidates made it very clear that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran was not acceptable.

McCain did a good job of highlighting both the big risk against Israel, and the risk to the entire region if Iran has nuclear weapons.  McCain also pointed out again the need for thoughtfulness in diplomacy when dealing with countries whose leaders are as evil and wicked in their comments against America and her allies, specifically Israel.  He pointedly criticized Obama for making just such comments.  McCain also promoted his “League of Democracies” as a method for unifying democratic nations in fighting against evil and terrorism.  Best line: “And Senator Obama is parsing words when he says precondition means preparation.”  That was perfect.  The whole time listening to Obama I was frustrated by either his stupidity or intentional manipulation of words.  Worst line: “I’m not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I’m president of the United States.”  This was in answer to the comment from Obama regarding our need to be able to meet with our [foreign] friends.  By this point, McCain was getting frustrated and this response made it show.  It helped a little that he ended it with “I don’t even have a seal yet”.

Obama was very smooth but lost so much credibility in this section that it amazes me he’s not apologizing for being outright deceptive.  Although he agrees (and frankly, opposing Iran is far too populist to fight) with the premise that Iran must remain non-nuclear, he continues to promote a very bad statement about meeting face-to-face with Ahmadinejad.  This was just a wrong-headed statement, and he should retract it.  Bad thing about politics, your campaign manager will quit if you ever admit to making a mistake.  So, he trumps up every piece of information he can manufacture to support this blatently bad idea, and says (or insinuates) that Kissinger agrees with him. Obama has no leg to stand on, and ends up admitting (tacitly) his deception.  Barack did make and interesting case for seeking a broader alliance to deal with Iran, but McCain also made a similarly strong case (based particularly on Russia’s attempts to stall any Security Council action) to keep the work between democracies.  Best line: “I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it’s going to keep America safe.”  That actually sounded presidential, is inarguable, and is one of the few things he’s said that makes me think he could be a leader.  But it will take more than that.  Worst line: “Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who’s one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran — guess what — without precondition.”  As alluded to above, the statement is true, but deceptive.  Every person who heard this thought they heard that Kissinger stated that the President of the United States should visit with Ahmadinejad.  But of course, he said no such thing.  And when McCain said “Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president — and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.”, Obama simply said “Of course not”.  McCain caught him red handed trying to pass off a lie to the American People.  Hopefully, most people caught  that.

Russia

This question was “How do you see the relationship with Russia? Do you see them as a competitor? Do you see them as an enemy? Do you see them as a potential partner?”.  Both candidates have very similar views on the risks we face with a growing militaristic Russia, who is already showing her willingness to start gobbling up border states.  The conflict in Georgia underscores both the desire to acquire more land mass and take, by force, critical energy infrastructure to which Russia has no reasonable right.  It’s unfortunate that this segment degraded into an interruption match between the candidates, part of my reason fot the title I used (”Exercise in Futility”).

Obama of course used this opportunity to underscore the importance in supporting democracies and ensuring that countries have access to NATO membership.  He also showed where his key differentiator in this area is: his inability to consider standing up to other countries who will not work toward a reasonable peace.  His comments eschewed an interminable desire to negotiate (remember Neville Chamberlain?), which will leave us in an undesireably defensive position with our enemies again some day.  Best line: “Over 26 years, Senator McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel.”  McCain never got a reasonable chance to contradict this statement, and now millions probably think he’s anti-alternative.  Anyone with any political knowledge knows the statement is meaningless… if McCain voted against a heavy spending bill that was out of control, everything on the bill was “voted against”.  But the line works because it’s accurate and well-times, although misleading.  Worst line: “I’ve got to make this point, Jim.”  This was where this segment just started to fall apart, and was the most frustrating for anyone watching as both candidates kept trying to interrupt each other.  I can’t blame either one, but in the end, Obama never made his point.  I wish he had.

McCain shows a solid ability to communicate the Russian situation and a preparedness to stand up to Putin.  He sounds consiliatory to the point of recognizing there are new factors, new rules, new challenges since the Cold War, but maintains the best and strongest position: we will work with you, but we will stand by out allies.   Best line: “By the way, I went [to Georgia once, … and there was a huge poster of Vladimir Putin, and it said, “Vladimir Putin, our president.  It was very clear, the Russian intentions towards Georgia. They were just waiting to seize the opportunity.”  This really helped solidify the both the fact of Russia’s intent on dominating their neighbors, and McCain’s experience and direct involvement in foreign affairs.  Worst line: “No one from Arizona is against solar.”  I didn’t get it.  Who said anything about Arizone before this point?

Another 9/11

And Lehrer’s last question was whether we will have anoth 9/11.

Again, both candidates had essentially the same message: a lot of good improvements, but we still have a long way to go. This segment degraded into a rehashing of Iraq, which helps Obama’s point that Iraq has become too big a priority over other interests.

McCain makes a good statement about the work that has been done (which he was very involved in since he’s been in the Senate the whole time), and the areas that need work… he does not oversell our national safety, but doesn’t push a scare agenda either.  Best line: “Senator Joe Lieberman and I decided that we needed a commission, and that was a commission to investigate 9/11, and find out what happened, and fix it.And we were — we were opposed by the administration, another area where I differed with this administration.”  Without a doubt, taking any and every opportunity to distance himself from Bush right now is going to be helpful.  Aligning himself with Lieberman, while Independent still considered a Democrat, also helps.  Worst line: “And we’ve got to — to make sure that we have people who are trained interrogators so that we don’t ever torture a prisoner ever again.”  This is probably the most emotionally charged position that McCain takes, and defintely draws attention from the center and left.  Without a doubt there is a line, but it continues to concern me that we become so tame in our interrogation techniques that we don’t get the kind of critical intellegence we need to protect our country.  I understand McCain’s position, and I just think it’s wrong.

Obama is stuck taking potshots and creating some fear where it probably doesn’t belong.  He really agrees with McCain, but wants to differentiate himself.  Best line: “We have weakened our capacity to project power around the world because we have viewed everything through this single lens.”  This statement is certainly true for many people, is without a doubt a critical point.  We do need to be focused on the entire world stage, even if we do have to spend years in a war.  Worst line: “There has never been a country on Earth that saw its economy decline and yet maintained its military superiority.”  Lacks credibility when you look at Cold War Russia, World War II Germany, and others.  I don’t know where he gets this, and it sounds like he just made it up.

Conclusion

As I said at the start, a fairly even outing for the two.  Another reason for the title: at times it was very difficult to see how the two differentiated themselves from each other.

Best and Worst lines of the night:

Obama Best Line: “Now, we also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down.  It hasn’t worked. And I think that the fundamentals of the economy have to be measured by whether or not the middle class is getting a fair shake. That’s why I’m running for president, and that’s what I hope we’re going to be talking about tonight.”  Sets up a clear message that McCain is Bush, and that we can expect the economy to continue to sour under McCain.  For undecideds, the middle class getting a fair shake is going to be very attractive, even though it’s absolutely the worst measure of an economy.

Obama Worst Line: “I’ve got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant (looks at the bracelet) - from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopeck, sure another mother is not going through what I’m going through.”  Playing catch up on this stuff never looks good, and having to look at the bracelet made it appear he was reading the name.  Lacked credibility and sincerity.  The follow up to this appears to be that the family of Sergeant Jopek specifically asked Obama to stop wearing the bracelet and was shocked that he was using the bracelet as a campaign issue.

McCain Best Line: “Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control in Washington. It’s completely out of control. It’s gone — we have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society.  We Republicans came to power to change government, and government changed us. And the — the worst symptom on this disease is what my friend, Tom Coburn, calls earmarking as a gateway drug, because it’s a gateway. It’s a gateway to out-of-control spending and corruption.  And we have former members of Congress now residing in federal prison because of the evils of this earmarking and pork-barrel spending.”   This is definitely McCain’s wheel-house.  This is great and sells very well conceptually.  It will be better if we can see it actually happen, and McCain seems like the one who will do it.  Obama never really admits that that earmarks are a problem, but only says that earmarks have been “abused”.

McCain Worst Line: “It’s well-known that I have not been elected Miss Congeniality”.  He used this phrase twice, which was twice too many for me.  There’s a dozen better ways to say you’re a maverick, and subtly linking in Palin just doesn’t work, and grates on my nerves.

Read the transcript of the debate.

WASHINGTON — Congressional leaders and the Bush administration reached a tentative agreement early Sunday on what may become the largest financial bailout in American history, authorizing the Treasury to purchase $700 billion in troubled debt from ailing firms in an extraordinary intervention to prevent widespread economic collapse.

Officials said that Congressional staff members would work through the night to finalize the language of the agreement and draft a bill, and that the bill would be brought to the House floor for a vote on Monday.

The bill includes pay limits for some executives whose firms seek help, aides said. And it requires the government to use its new role as owner of distressed mortgage-backed securities to make more aggressive efforts to prevent home foreclosures.

In some cases, the government would receive an equity stake in companies that seek aid, allowing taxpayers to profit should the rescue plan work and the private firms flourish in the months and years ahead.

The White House also agreed to strict oversight of the program by a Congressional panel and conflict-of-interest rules for firms hired by the Treasury to help run the program.

What this means is that negotiations have succeeded in a plan that may make Congress comfortable, and has the possibility of coercing the public into agreement.

The problem is that we’re still putting taxpayers’ money at risk, just in a slightly more controlled fashion.  I still don’t like this.  Neither does the Senior Republican on the Banking Committee, Richard Shelby.

Now the deal has the prospect of not only recovering all of the taxpayers money, it may even provide additional funds for the treasurer (which would hopefully go toward debt reduction).  But it is still very risky.  As I’ve been thinking about it, I wonder why the government can’t issue some kind of bond to finance this.  This would create the opportutnity of letting people invest in this voluntarily, and remove the risk from the taxpayer.

Just a thought.

When the bill is made available, we’ll take a look at it and provide some thoughts.

All I can say is, I was wrong.  Jim Lehrer does want to be the next Tim Russert.

I will say, I did not sense any partisanship on Lehrer’s part, but he sure dug into follow up questions, including a lot quizzical looks in reaction to the answers.  Making matters a bit worse was his oafish attempts at turning the debate into a conversation, almost as if McCain and Obama were seeking marital counselling.  “Say that to Senator McCain”.  “Direct yourself to Senator Obama”.  “Do you agree with Senator Obama?”.  I don’t know if that was part of the original ground rules that was set prior to the debate, but it was a bit disorienting for the candidates, and sometimes just distracted from the actual answer.

The ground rules as defined by Lehrer at the beginning stated that the debate would be broken up into roughly 9 minute segments, with 2 minute answers from each candidate to the lead question, with “direct exchanges between the candidates and moderator followups permitted.”  Nothing about the moderator coaching the candidates to talk to each other instead of the American People.  Naturally, the candidates and the moderator were not able to maintain the schedule, but overall the debate was well done.  Both candidates were more or less civil with each other, although it seemed that Obama was more willing to address his opponent by his first name than McCain was.

One thing to note off the top: I counted eight times (maybe nine?) that Obama said that McCain was right.  I hope he continues that approach, as the subliminal message is awesome.  I’m sure that Obama believes this is an effective way to show his willingness to stretch his arm across the aisle.

Overall, I think the debate was a draw.   Both candidates appeared to be knowledgeable about the issues, although to differing degrees, both were articulate, and both provided some amount of support for their answers.  Both managed to get a similar amount of criticisms in about the other.  Both provided support to demonstrate their experience, although McCain was able to make a much stronger case.

Obama was a bit more charismatic.  He was able to appear more relaxed and comfortable with the entire debate.  His was also a little more anxious, however, when he wanted to “set the record straight” when his opponent made a criticism.

McCain was, in my opinion, able to take the better position on issues, and provide the most knowledgeable and factual assessment of the events that are currently facing us.  His arguments come from years of experience and solid knowledge of the underlying issues throughout the world.  Obama, while obviously knowledgeable and able to speak to different issues (and pronounce names correctly… I think he practiced), appeared to have a much more pedestrian understanding of foreign affairs issues, including the Iraq war.  Clearly, Obama has stronger grasp of domestic affairs than foreign.

Specific Issues

Financial Bailout

Lehrer covered this with three questions, one about where the candidates stand on the bailout, one about how each as President differentiates themselves from the other, and lastly, what each of them would do to fund the bailout (presumably, what would they cut).

Both candidates shared a similar set of concerns about the bailout, ensuring that taxpayers are protected, that CEOs aren’t enriched by the bailout, and that there is appropriate oversight.

Obama showed his ability to politicize this issue by talking about how it was Bush and McCain’s fault (showing his ignorance of root causes of the meltdown) and repeatly talking about “how we got here”.  Not talking much about how to move forward, although he does make a good point that the current regulation model needs to be reviewed and revised to reflect the products, tools, and social makeup of the 21st century.  Best line: “People are wondering: How is this going to affect me?”.  Good emotional link to people.  Worst line: “For the viewers who are watching, I am optimistic about the capacity of us to come together with a plan”.  That said nothing.  Better to say “We will have a workable plan”.

McCain demonstrates a strong sense of confidence in the work that is underway, and expresses support for the bipartisan effort.  Strong support for tax cuts, spending cuts.  Best line:   “Well how about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlements?”  That was in response to Lehrer’s pressing for something from both candidates that expressed the fact that $700 billion would require some kind of cut in spending or increase in taxes.  I don’t know if McCain has been thinking about that for a while, but it was unexpected and a great spontaneous idea, and possibly risky idea to put on the table.  Worst line: “I also warned about corporate greed and excess and CEO pay and all that”.  That was in response to Obama talking about his “whistle-blowing” to the Treasury.  Generally, doesn’t look good to do the “Me too” thing unless it’s really constructive to the arguement… this came off as if there was a contest to name all the good things you did.

War in Iraq

This topic probably demonstrates some of the core differences between the two candidates.  McCain supports the war in Iraq, and supports completing the work without a timetable.  Obama thinks we should never have gone into Iraq (and can’t stop saying that), and insists on a timetable to get out of Iraq, contending that we need to get those troops into Afghanistan and find and kill bin Laden.  In discussing this issue, both candidates communicated very clearly their position and left little room for any real argument: one has to simply look at both positions and decide which one believes is correct.

McCain provided a good analysis of the problems with the Iraq war, particularly the lack of planning to manage the situation once the forces had established control in Baghdad.  The need to manage the exit carefully and without a set date will create a vacuum of power that will allow Iran and terrorist organizations the opportunity to create more instability and open up more regional violence that would likely bring the US back into conflicts within a short time.  Best line: “You cannot have a failed strategy that can cause you to nearly lose a conflict.” in answer to the question of lessons learned from Iraq.  Worst line: “that same strategy[, the surge,] will be employed in Afghanistan by this great general.”  Most will probably not grab on this, but I don’t think we are yet in a position to state that the same strategy will work in Afghanistan, or if it will, it would be nice to know more about why.  Clearly we need to build the force there, but we’re dealing with border crossing issues that really complicate things.

Obama did a good job of presenting his position.  He has clearly dug into this area deeply and knows the terrain.  The fact is, setting a date is really, in my opinion, just a political thing.  The real crux of Obama’s argument is the need to get forces built up in Afghanistan.  That will be hard to do without taking resources from Iraq.  It seems that Obama is really trying to create the same patriotic support that Bush experienced out of 9/11 by pressing the “Kill bin Laden” line.  Best line: “The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong.”   Technical trivial, but good for political points.  Worst line: “…that was a tactic designed to contain the damage…”. That line gave McCain an opportunity to hit back with criticism that Obama didn’t know the difference between strategy and tacktics (the word that Obama should have used was “strategy”, not “tactic”).

Afghanistan

The core question asked was “Should we deploy more more troops to Afhganistan?”  This really didn’t add a lot to the discussion that hadn’t been mostly covered during the Iraq discussion.  The biggest topic in this segment was crossing the border into Pakistan.  The issue is not so much crossing as it is how we interact with the Pakistan government in finding bin Laden.

Obama is anxious, it seems, to present himself as strongly anti-terrorist and ready to protect the interests of the United States.  He stated that he would pursue al Qaeda into Pakistan, and if Pakistan can’t or won’t help, he’ll go in anyway.  McCain jumped on this pretty hard, rightfully, because you just can’t telegraph such a plan that way.  Interesting that Obama later talks about how much respect the US has lost over the years, yet would pursue this kind of approach to working with our allies.  Best line: “No. 2, we’ve got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years”.  This was part of his answer about what to do about Afghanistan, and probably woke up anyone that was drifting off.  Most people don’t know a lot about the poppy issue, but hearing that there is one is definitely a distraction and gives the appearance that Obama knows what he’s talking about.  Worst line: “Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here’s what I said.  And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.”  Seems to me that if you are going to enter a country’s borders without the permission of the government and start shooting, that would be considered attacking that country, regardless of how noble your purpose may be.  This was just a severely contratictory statement on Obama’s part.  And I don’t think he realizes that.

McCain gets the opportunity to start really showing what foreign affairs is really all about.  While Obama sounds like a bull in a china shop with his approach to dealing with Pakistan, McCain clearly recognizes the subtleties of diplomacy.  Picking on Obama’s apparently careless approach in both planning and communicating gives him some big points here.  The only problem is that this is an area that many Americans are really not familiar with, and those that are will either back McCain or pray that the State Department will protect us.  Best line: “I won’t repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region.  And the result over time was the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a lot of the difficulties we are facing today. So we can’t ignore those lessons of history.”  Great because it points to the massively misunderstood history behind our struggles with the Taliban.  Great because it is an opportunity to admit error and regrets.  This is a golden opportunity for honesty and awareness.  Worst line: “Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you’re going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger.”  I just don’t understand why he used this line here.  It was a little extreme to me, and didn’t seem to fit what he was actually talking about (financial support for Pakistan).

Tomorrow: Iran, Russia, Will There Be Another 9/11, and Best and Worst Overall Lines of the night.

Read the transcript of the debate.

Update: Fixing link.

The Mets are still in the running for the wild card.  Milwaukee fell to Chicago 3-7, and that ties up the wild card race between Milwaukee and New York.  As long as New York wins Sunday’s final game against Florida, the worst they would have is a post-season tie-breaking game for the wild card.  I normally hate rooting for Chicago, but “Go Cubs!” (if Milwaukee falls again to Chicago, no tie-breaker needed).

Johan Santana pitched a great game today, with just 3 hits and pitching all 9 innings against Florida, with a score of 2-0.

Anyhow, Philadelpha deserves kudos for a great season, and good luck in the post season.  It will be interesting if the Mets end up playing Philidelphia for the League Pennant!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And yes, I know I owe you my thoughts on last night’s debate.  I will have that shortly.

We want to encourage everyone to tune into the debates, be careful to pay attention to both the questions and the answers, and think critically about the answers.  Use this post as an open thread to post your comments during and after the debate.

Update: Added link to the debate analysis.

The proposal from Congressional Leaders would have limited the amount of the initial bailout money released, and given Congress the ability to restrict the releasing of any additional funds if they were not happy with the results.  It also provided limitations on executive compensation and severance for companies that benefit from the bailout, protections from foreclosures for homeowners, and give the government a stake in the companies that benefit.

There was evidently some amount of partisan confusion and contention among Congressional leaders.

I can’t help but get the feeling that Paulson wants nothing more than the maximum amount of power he can grab to make unilateral decisions regarding the use of taxpayer money.  His Face The Nation interview on Sunday was informative but unconvincing to me.

On the other hand, if as a government we are going to work to manage this issue for some period of time, I cannot fathom that Congress would be able to manage it effectively.  I would rather have one person or a small board work through the day-to-day details as the situation warrants.  But I would want someone I can trust and who will accept accountability.  Paulson seems to be neither.

McCain believes, evidently, that enough progress is being made that he can afford to take some time away from this crisis.  Nothing further seems to have been said regarding the continued suspension of his campaign.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As an aside, it seems that some people are confused by what “suspending the campaign” is supposed to mean.  What should clearly be understood here is that he is canceling campaign rallies and interviews that had been planned so that he can focus his time on working with Congress through the financial debacle that is threatening to shutdown our economy.

Some have contended that he should have pulled all of his TV and radio advertising.  Why?  That would be counterproductive and costly.  It makes no sense to pull the ads.  The only thin that makes sense is to cancel the events and get to Washington, as he has done.  By declaring that he was suspending the campaign, that’s what he meant, and any sensible person could easily understand.

What is amusing is that when there isn’t anything substantive to criticize, people will tend to go after the minutia.  The only things that are important at this juncture, with regard to the economic crisis and the reaction of the candidates, are:

• What is the right/best course to take?
• What kind of leadership role will the candidates take?

Everything else, at this point, is just noise.

Barack’s still has a responsibility as a Senator from Illinois.  And yet, he thinks that his “skills” will be identified and requested if needed (which may explain all of those “Present” votes).  As President, one cannot sit back and wait for others to say “Hey, Prez, can you come over here and help us figure out how to stop World War III?”.  As a Senator, this is Obama’s golden opportunity to demonstrate the length and breadth of his leadership ability.  But instead, he just wants to sit on the sidelines until the mythical Senate Coach sends him in.

And it takes Bush to invite him to the White House along with McCain and Congressional Leadership to work through this mess.

Sorry, this doesn’t look like leadership to me.  Looks like followership.

McCain on the other hand is running up to the Coach and shouting “Send me in!!!”.  He is taking action, action appropriate to his role as a Senator and as a Presidential candidate.  Putting the country first, putting aside his own personal agenda.  He’s going straight back to Washington to ensure this gets worked out right.

That’s leadership.  That’s John McCain.

Ted Sporer shares similar comments.

Here are John’s remarks made today in New York City (courtesy of the McCain-Palin campaign):

America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system. We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever[y] corner of our country will be impacted. We cannot allow this to happen.

Last Friday, I laid out my proposal and I have since discussed my priorities and concerns with the bill the Administration has put forward. Senator Obama has expressed his priorities and concerns. This morning, I met with a group of economic advisers to talk about the proposal on the table and the steps that we should take going forward. I have also spoken with members of Congress to hear their perspective.

It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration’s proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.

Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.

McCain sends a good message here: he and Obama have a commitment to their current jobs as Senators and if they are planning to be President, need to take a strong leadership role in working throuh the current crisis.  This is a great opportunity to demonstrate those skills.

Let’s hope it doesn’t create a circus.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

By the way, ABC, NBC and CBS all have their Friday night schedule blocked off for the debate.  It will be interesting to see if the debate does get postponed, and what the networks will do with their programming… presumably shows that would have started on October 3 are in the can (although, these days, they could still be in post-production).  Starting a week early could be workable, or could find a dearth of viewers.  I bet the networks either give us reruns or indepth analysis of the current economic crisis and election issues.

Update: fixing font size problem.

Buffett said he expressed interest in buying parts of the giant insurer over the Sept. 13-14 weekend, when regulators and financial industry executives were holding emergency talks on problems that included the fate of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LEHMQ.PK: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), which filed for bankruptcy protection on Sept. 15.

Buffett’s current thought is to buy some of these units as they come up for sale over the next year or so.

This comes on the heels of an even bigger announcement Tuesday that Buffet is planning to invest $5 billion in Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Buffett is providing a great example of how we can best resolve the current crisis.  Instead of leaning on taxpayers to solve this, get the business world, especially stronger investment companies like BH, to provide well analyzed and planned investments to support the companies that have the best opportunity for recovery.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I noticed that the Wall Street Journal web site has changed significantly, providing more of a “newspaper” look to the front page of the site.  I had not been there in a couple of weeks, and I’m assuming this change coincided with changes to the format of the front page of the print edition… dropping the “What’s News” section mostly below the fold and pushing the top story across 5 of the 6 columns on the front page… a big increase.

I like the web site changes.  The paper edition is okay except there’s less content (where I tend to start my day) in “What’s News”  now.

It’s your typical morning talk show, except with a business twist.  Mr. Kernan tends to be the conservative of the three and while I generally agree with his viewpoint, every once in a while I’m reminded that this is the sister network to MSNBC and NBC.  Today was my reminder.

They were discussing yesterday’s congressional hearings and testimony by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.  Senators Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer and House Rep. Barney Frank were grilling Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke like cheese sandwiches, and Kernan says, and I swear I’m not making this up, that he was impressed with the performances of Dodd, Schumer and Frank.  Memo to Joe:  Where are your critical thinking skills?  Dodd, Schumer and Frank are the guys that caused the current crisis in the first place!  What right do they have badgering the two men charged with the task of cleaning up their messes?  If I’m going to trust anybody to protect my interests as a taxpayer in that bunch, it’s going to be Paulson and Bernanke.

My local liberal Starbucks barista approached me this morning and asked:  “Don’t you think it’s fair that if huge corporations are going to be bailed out that individual homeowners should be allowed to live in their houses too?”

“You mean, without paying for them?”, I asked.

“It’s only fair”, she replied.

Fair?  Memo to Starbucks Barista Babe:  Where are your critical thinking skills?  I expect very little from the federal government.  Protect me from threats, both foreign and domestic.  Regulate interstate commerce.  That’s about it.  I don’t expect them to educate my kids.  I don’t expect them to provide for my retirement.  I don’t expect them to be fair about anything.  The government, especially Congress, does not understand the concept of “fair”.  They operate under completely different concepts–pandering, self-promotion and egotism.  If I want fairness, I look to Jesus.

I, however, operate under separate rules of engagement.  I expect people to do for themselves and not look to the government for answers.  I believe in personal responsibility, the law of unintended consequences, and utilizing my God-given intellect to leverage critical thinking skills.  I believe in concepts like service, kindness and love.  See how I expect so little from Congress?

Finally, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday for the sheer entertainment value of his show and he ran an audio clip from Joe Biden’s interview with Katie Couric that aired Monday night.  To paraphrase, Biden said, and I swear I’m not making this up, that when the stock market crash happened in 1929, FDR got on the television and told the American people that everything was going to be ok.  And this is the guy that thinks Sarah Palin is unqualified to be President?  First, Hoover was the President in 1929 and second, television hadn’t been invented yet.  Memo to Senator Biden:  Where are your critical thinking skills?

When I was in elementary school, I was told by my teachers to put on my thinking cap.  What this country needs right now is about 300 million thinking caps–one for every man, woman and child.  Does anyone know where we can get them?

My next thought is that $700 billion is a huge chunk of change, and ultimately, the taxpayer, that is, you and me, is on the hook.  The current US budget is running a significant deficit, Congress and the current Administration have not proven themselves worthy of handling such a large sum of money.  On the other hand, the Treasury is acquiring these assets at a fire sale price, so as a taxpayer, we may be able to recoup our investment, and then some, and as an investor, that’s a good thing.

Then my mind turns to the fact that these companies have done a poor job managing their resources and risks and should by rights, be allowed to fail.  If their managers did stupid things, why should we bail them out?  I guarantee you that if I squandered my family’s capital, no one would bail me out, least of all the government.  My immediate family, maybe, but not the government.

Finally, I realize what the unintended consequences of allowing huge financial institutions to fail would be, whether quasi-governmental or otherwise, and the uncertainty it would create not only with the stock markets, but the currency markets, the bond markets, and the global repurcussions that would ensue and I realize that someone has to do something, and that someone is Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson.

I remember in 2004 and 2005 Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan implored Congress to do something about the unchecked growth of FannieMae and FreddieMac.  Now we hear reports of how attempts to actually do something failed to make it out of committee because of Democratic efforts to kill any legislation that would curb them.  We hear that Senators Dodd and Obama were the main recipients of Fannie and Freddie generosity.  We hear Barney Frank dictate that any bailout package must include a provision that allows homeowners to stay in their houses even though they can’t afford to make their payments.  (Doesn’t that sound like government-sponsored Socialist policy to you?)  I remember that the root of the current crisis began with “mark to market” accounting rules established during the Clinton Administration.  These rules require that financial institutions mark down the value of certain assets (securities) to current market value and take a charge against earnings and capital even though the value of these assets may rise in the future and the institutions can then sell them for a gain.  I remember how Chairman Greenspan was “puzzled” by the lack of risk premium associated with certain assets as he tried to slow the real estate bubble by gradually and systematically raising rates, with no effect.  I hear calls for increased regulation and accountability by the same people who received contributions from Fannie and Freddie, the same people who are blaming the Federal Reserve for this mess, the same people that allowed Fannie and Freddie to grow unchecked.  I want to throw up.

We don’t need more regulation.  The markets self-regulate.  Poor decisions always end badly.  The chickens always come home to roost.  However, and this is the important part, we cannot allow the markets to free fall, with the ensuing panic that results.  This cannot be 1929 all over again and President Bush cannot be Hoover.  The problem is that I don’t trust the folks in Washington any more to promote whatever is in the taxpayers best interest.  They have squandered my trust and respect, and I have no confidence that they will do what it takes, that is, the right thing, to earn it back.

Thankfully, Lehrer is already established enough that he won’t try to be another Tim Russert.

At this point, I think it’s helpful to resurrect the list of practical candidate questions we discussed back in May.  These questions came from a a conference that was held at the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School.  It’s worth simply revisiting the list:

1. Can you share some examples of when you were a catalyst who brought groups with polarized opinions together so that all voices were at the table?
2. Tell us about a high-performing team that you’ve built. What are the most important principles you’d follow in governing and leading your senior White House team?
3. In the past, how have you responded to, evaluated, and learned from the mistakes - your own and those of your team?
4. The U.S. ranks first in incarceration and 18th in high school graduation. What leadership skills do you bring to the challenge of reversing these numbers?
5. What are your five core values and how do they shape how you lead?
6. Tell us about a time when your judgment has been tested in crisis. What do you want us to appreciate about your judgment?
7. The internet and technology have flattened the political playing field, allowing for collective decision making in new ways. How will you balance our ability to have a more participatory democracy with the need for executive decision-making?
8. Young people have engaged in this election in greater numbers than ever before. How will you keep them engaged?
9. Many of the hardest decisions in the White House won’t be consensus decisions. What will inform your decision making?
10. What experiences have you had that have helped you deeply understand the mindset and values of another culture?
11. In what ways will you help Americans realize the challenges we face and do the hard work of overcoming them together?
12. The role requires decisiveness. Share some examples of your ability and willingness to be decisive.
13. How will you create an environment for innovation within your leadership team?
14. As the transition occurs, you’re not going to get the kind of help you want, as quickly as you want it. Will you describe how you would work in a bipartisan way to speed up the confirmation process so that your office can begin to get some things done?
15. Do you have the courage to be lonely?

Unfortunately, I can pretty much predict the sort of questions that will actually be asked:

1. Who is responsible for the current economic situation?
2. What should Congress do about the economy?
3. What will you do about the economy?
4. Why are you lying in your campaign ads about your opponent?
5. How soon will you bring all of our military members home from all points on the globe and shut our borders for good?
6. Aside from “lipstick”, what other words or phrases are now off-limits?
7. What kind of judge will you appoint?  Pro- or anti- Roe v. Wade?

The American people will NOT get the kind of information they need to make an informed decision.  This will be a classic circus with the media maintaining control of the agenda and the candidates getting little more than a few shots at each other (we should keep count of how many times the each candidate answers not the question asked but the one they want to answer).  We would have been better served by a town hall style of interaction.  Of course, such an approach would certainly favor McCain, since Obama has demonstrated he cannot stay out of trouble when he is deviated from his script.

So, break out the popcorn and gather around the magic box as we analyze the mediocre drivel we will be fed.  It’s not much, but it’s what we got!

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

But wrapped up in that fear is some of the reality that our economy is dependent upon the use of credit throughout the business and consumer world to keep things moving.

When you think about it, that sounds a little more scary than I thought it would.

In other words, if we all had plenty of cash, could easily leverage existing personal liquidity to acquire the things we need and perhaps even satisfy our wants, and had no credit to use, that would potentially be a big problem.

Because growth often depends upon the ability to leverage credit to invest in start-up costs, expansion costs, raw materials, etc.  Which is a great model for the world of business.  It’s really about investment more than credit.  Meaning, you expect there to be risk of failure.

In the consumer world, the game is different, credit is seldom used to facilitate growth (except for real estate), and more often is used to create a lifestyle that the borrower may or may not be ready for from an income standpoint.  And over the years, retail business has become more and more dependent upon credit to keep Americans feeding their greed for more “stuff” to build those lifestyles.  Truly, if consumers don’t have or want to use credit, the retail world is in risk of decline from the heady growth it’s experienced for the past few decades.

And that was why Congress and Bush introduced the Economic Stimulus Package earlier in 2008, to get consumers buying things even though credit was becoming less desirable to consumer.

And as we walk into this week with an additional $700 billion bailout of the financial industry (on top of the $800 billion we’ve already spent), one wonders if we’re really doing the right thing.

Imagine a family already in over their heads, already heavily in debt, already outspending their income, maxed out on their credit cards, piles of medical bills on the table, looking for a way out.  Now Wall Street is in this boat.

And we’re ready to offer them a way out.  And make the taxpayers, many of whom have been responsible enough not to get themselves into this kind of trouble over the years, liable for the bailout.  Don’t be fooled… buying bad debt is not going to lead to a major recovery of the bailout money… we know the debts are bad, they’re not going to suddenly become good.

And, frankly, everyone involved in the bailout probably has a strong conflict of interest.  Lovely.

I’m not saying it’s wrong (yet), but I don’t like it.  Of course, there are alternatives I like even less… like a foriegn interest providing a bailout.
Newt Gingrich expressed concerns about this today at National Review Online.  He is concerned that this is going to get rushed through Congress too quickly, and identified four questions that really should be answered before this proceeds:

1. Is the current financial crisis the only crisis affecting the economy?
2. Is a big bureaucracy solution the only answer?
3. Will the Paulson plan be implemented with transparency and oversight?
4. In two months we will have an election and then there will be a new administration. Is this plan something we want to trust to a post-Paulson Treasury?

Good quesitons these.  Hopefully, we can get them answered and resolve the current crisis with solid knowledge, planning, and common sense.

I will continue to assert that the basics of market discipline should be allowed to work (which will naturally hit my 401K just like yours), and we continue to abandon that thinking as large companies face failures, often from their own poor management and decision-making, in a world where the average investor is constantly reminded that investments involve risk, and that one may lose some or all of the money they invest.

Why in the world is that not good enough for the big boys?

Missed it by THAT MUCH

Remember, you read it here first: on September 11 this blog reported a mounting backlash from Catholic bishops against Biden, Barack Obama’s “Catholic” pro-abortion running mate. At that time I estimated eight bishops had come out to denounce Biden; the total is now 55. Beyond that, Biden is being trashed across every state of the Union by Catholic newspapers, TV and radio stations, and blogs. It is a tsunami of rejection.

The story has now hit the secular media. Last Saturday Time magazine asked: “Does Biden Have a Catholic Problem?” By Wednesday the issue had moved onto the front page of the New York Times. Joe the Jinx has blown it, big time. Biden has only himself to blame: he started this war, with his notoriously undisciplined mouth. He knew the dangers. Last August, Archbishop Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St Louis and now Prefect of the Apostolic Segnatura in Rome, said communion should be denied to pro-abortion politicians “until they have reformed their lives”.

Now, how important is this?

There are 47 million Catholic voters in the United States. One quarter of all registered voters are Catholics. At every presidential election in the past 30 years the Catholic vote has gone to the winning candidate, except for Al Gore in 2000. This year 41 per cent of Catholics are independents - up from 30 per cent in 2004

My take here is that Obama is in serious trouble… Biden has already cost him more in independants than he could have possibly gotten out of Biden’s reinforcement of the Democrat party base.

Update (Art): Fixed link.

Don’t get me wrong.  I thought the speakers were great, the food was good.  The governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, gave an encouraging stump speech for McCain and Palin.

It’s just that the event was so lightly attended.

I walked in expecting to see a couple of hundred people or more.  I don’t think we broke seventy-five.  And probably half or more of the attendees were either candidates, current office holders, or party workers.  Both my wife and a co-worker of mine were there, which I appreciated.

On the positive side, I got to spend a few minutes with former Polk County GOP Chairman Ted Gorman, and candidate for third district US House Kim Schmett.  Fellow County Central Committee member John Bloom and his wife Judy (whom I met for the first time this evening) sat with us at dinner, and we had a great conversation.

Also in attendance were the new National Committee Man and Woman Steve Scheffler and Kim Lehman, Iowa State Senator Jeff Angelo, Iowa State House Candidate Larry Disney, Polk County Supervisor Bob Brownell, and Iowa District Five US House Representative Steve King, who acted as the MC for the evening.   Christopher Reed, candidate for US Senate running against Tom Harkin, was expected but did not make the event.

We heard speeches from King, Brownell, Iowa House Representative Scott Raecker, and Iowa Senator Brad Zaun.  Brad gave an enthusistic talk on the business of the Iowa General Assembly, and then talked about the leadership we can expect from Obama… highlighting the one hundred and fifty times Obama has voted “Present” while serving int the Senate.

Raecker expressed the same concern over the attendance tonight and encouraged us to engage with our neighbors, coworkers and friends more directly.

And Ted Sporer, current Polk County GOP Chairman spoke on strategies that Republicans have been missing the mark on and need to work to ensure we get the vote out.  With twenty percent of the state’s population in Polk County, we really can make the difference in Iowa.

Governor Pawlenty talked about how Minnesota has not gone with the Republican candidate since 1972.  This week, there is polling putting Obama and McCain in a tie in the Gopher State.  His challenge to us was that if Minnesota can have that close of a race, Iowa should be to go solidly with McCain.

Take away from this event: we really do need to understand and reach Republicans, promote Conservative ideas to those who are still unsure of their own politics or who are willing to listen, and ensure that Repubilcans are voting this year.

Thanks so much to the Polk County Republicans staff (Sarah and Joe), leadership and event committee for working so hard to succeed.  Keep up the good work!