Below is a Market Watch video showing what ordinary Germans think heading into the general election.  Right now it’s looking like a right of center government of the CDU/CSU/FDP.  But, it will be down to the wire. Likely, there will be little change in economic policy, regardless of the result.

Related articles

Merkel Votes Scarce in Eastern Region – WSJ

German voters shun financial crisis debate – Japan Times

German election roundup – A Fistful of Euros

Related posts:

• German chancellor chastises US for easy money
• German banks loaded with 816 billion in toxic paper
• Discount All Caucus Wins
• Peer Steinbrueck says Germany might bail out the Austrians
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points

The bailouts, deficit spending, and debate over health care are having a very nasty negative effect on the electoral fortunes of the Democratic party. Charlie Cook, a well-known and respected election pundit, writes (emphasis added):

…President Obama’s job approval rating in both their August 16-18 and August 17-19 averages was just 51 percent, the lowest level of his presidency. The latter sampling showed his disapproval up to 42 percent, matching his all-time low hit in the August 15-17 tracking poll…

These data confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Today, The Cook Political Report’s Congressional election model, based on individual races, is pointing toward a net Democratic loss of between six and 12 seats, but our sense, factoring in macro-political dynamics is that this is far too low.

Many veteran Congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats. A new Gallup poll that shows Congress’ job disapproval at 70 percent among independents should provide little solace to Democrats. In the same poll, Congressional approval among independents is at 22 percent, with 31 percent approving overall, and 62 percent disapproving.

That all of this is happening against a backdrop of an economy that appears to be rebounding and a resurgent stock market underscores how much the President’s and his party’s legislative agenda have contributed to these poor poll numbers.

We believe it would be a mistake to underestimate the impact that this mood will have on Members of Congress of both parties when they return to Washington in September, if it persists through the end of the Congressional recess.

If you are losing support even while the economic situation and stock market are improving, you are obviously doing something wrong.

Related posts:

• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• Polls: George W. Bush at new low
• US: Democrats looking at a filibuster proof Senate majority
• Patrick Buchanan throws in the towel
• Don’t worry, be happy. It’s in the bag

Related articles

Ahmadi-Nejad win sparks violent clashes – FT
Iranian Elections – Mark Thoma
Iran Elections – Swampland
The Persian Paradox: Understanding Iran and Iranians (video) – FORA.tv

Related posts:

• Violence erupts in Latvia
• Violence erupts in Iceland
• War in Iran: Is it inevitable?
• The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran
• Discount All Caucus Wins

Here’s a little video that should teach you why you need to erase all data permanently before you sell or get rid of any computer, Blackberry or computing device.

Related posts:

• John McCain on SNL

I just voted today. Got in line at 6:45 and was out the door by 7:45. It was relatively painless.

Related posts:

• Heavy early voting in US Presidential election
• US: Democrats looking at a filibuster proof Senate majority

Patrick Buchanan has given up on any chances of McCain winning this election judging by his last blog post. The title alone says it all. In a missive titled “Obama’s First 100 Days” Buchanan asks what an Obama Administration will look like.

While you may disagree with the sometimes controversial Pat Buchanan, he is always interesting.

Undeniably, a powerful tide is running for the Democratic Party, with one week left to Election Day.

Bush’s approval rating is 27 percent, just above Richard Nixon’s Watergate nadir and almost down to Carter-Truman lows. After each of those presidents reached their floors — in 1952, 1974, 1980 — the opposition party captured the White House.

Moreover, 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans think the nation is on the wrong course, and since mid-September, when McCain was still slightly ahead, the Dow has lost 4,000 points — $5 trillion to $6 trillion in value.

Leading now by eight points in an average of national polls, Barack Obama has other advantages.

Not a single blue state is regarded as imperiled or even a toss-up, while Obama leads in six crucial red states: Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri and Colorado. Should McCain lose one of the six, he would have to win Pennsylvania to compensate for the lost electoral votes. But the latest Pennsylvania polls show Barack with a double-digit lead.

Lately moving into the toss-up category are Nevada, North Dakota, Montana and Indiana. All voted twice for George W. Bush.

Not only is Obama ahead in the state and national polls, he has more money, is running far more ads, has a superior organization on the ground, attracts larger crowds, and has greater enthusiasm and more media in camp. And new voter registrations heavily favor the Democrats.

Though Congress is regarded by Americans with a disdain bordering on disgust — five of six Americans think it has done a poor job — Democratic majorities are certain to grow. Indeed, with Democrats favored by 10 points over Republicans, Nancy Pelosi’s majority could grow by 25 seats and Harry Reid could find himself with a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators.

Democrats already have 49, plus two independents: Socialist Bernie Sanders and Independent Joe Lieberman. Their challengers are now ahead in New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Minnesota, Oregon and Colorado, with a chance of picking up Georgia, Alaska, Kentucky and Mississippi.

We may be looking at a reverse of 1980, when Reagan won a 10-point victory over Jimmy Carter, and Republicans took the Senate and, working with Boll Weevil Democrats, effective control of the House.

With his tax cuts, defense buildup and rollback policy against the “Evil Empire,” Reagan gave us some of the best years of our lives, culminating in America’s epochal victory in the Cold War.

What does the triumvirate of Obama-Pelosi-Reid offer?

Read on to find out what Pat thinks! I don’t agree with his premises above or conclusions, but it is debate-worthy nevertheless. What’s your opinion of what he has to say?

Source
Obama’s First 100 Days – Patrick Buchanan

Related posts:

• Obama wins debate
• Patrick Buchanan: Powell’s endorsement of Obama is about race
• Pennsylvania goes to Clinton
• Don’t worry, be happy. It’s in the bag
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points

I am hearing of heavy early voting in the U.S. presidential election. In particular, I have heard stories of heavy voting in Georgia, Colorado, Florida and North Carolina. Apparently, Colorado’s exit polls show an enormous 20%+ advantage for Obama, where the voting in Florida is tilted in favor of McCain (these statistics are as yet unverified).

I have also heard that the percentage of Blacks voting early is much higher in Georgia and North Carolina in particular (again unverified). WTOP radio in Washington D.C. has said that wait times were up to 2 hours 45 minutes in Florida as they only have 17 polling stations open (in Broward County(?)) out of 300 that will eventually be open. (This comes from memory as I was driving when I heard this story)

Nevertheless, I do have a good story supplied to me by a friend who has actually voted in Florida. Lines are long there and turnout will be very, very heavy. Expect some serious problems come voting day if these kinks aren’t ironed out. (Oh, and this is the third different Presidential ballot type in Florida in 3 elections. That much change is sure to cause problems).

I stood in line for 1.5 hours today to vote. It was a typical South Florida scene; typical in many ways. Hot, humid and a little surreal. Most people in line were Hispanic and about 50% were actually conversing in Spanish. The woman in line behind me was a first time voter and my wife and I spent the better part of an hour trying to get her to read through and understand the sample ballot and all of the random amendments that we had to vote on.

As I stood at the entrance to the polling station, a middle-age Cuban man came out of the door and immediately recognized an older compatriot who had been meandering through t the line with me. They exchanged a typical Cuban greeting “Como tu estas chico” (how are you guy) and then the younger fellow leaned into the older man’s ear and said with a grin in a loud whisper “No votes por ese negro” (Don’t vote for that black guy). This was immediately followed by a chortle, some back slapping and a quick goodbye.

My wife and I were a little startled, but not surprised. The Nicaraguan man in front of us in line looked at us in disbelief as well and began lamenting the state of things in Miami.

So what’s going on? What explains why over 70% of Hispanics are voting for Obama, but just around 40% of Cubans?
-Duck’s Pond

These are interesting times. Read the rest of this blog post to see the writer’s take on what’s happening with the Hispanic vote in Florida. And, vote early if you can!

Source
No Votes por ese Negro – Duck’s Pond

Related posts:

• Intent and motive
• Discount All Caucus Wins
• Don’t worry, be happy. It’s in the bag
• Is Bill Clinton’s legacy tarnished?
• E-voting machines on the Simpsons

Race has a way of inserting itself into almost everything in America. I have always found this troubling. In this particular Presidential election, it should be the economy here, the economy there, the economy everywhere. Yet, we also find the issue of race a factor where it should not be.

Witness Patrick Buchanan. Now, I have a certain amount of respect Patrick Buchanan, the former U.S. Republican Presidential candidate (after all, his website is on my blogroll). I came of age watching him debate Morton Kondracke and Eleanor Clift on “The McLaughlin Group” weekly in the early 1980s. His controversial ideas on foreign policy are top-notch. However, when it comes to domestic politics, he often veers off into the jingoist and downright racist side of things.

Such is the case again regarding Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama for President. Buchanan makes a connection between Obama and Powell that many seem to have made silently, but have been afraid to voice out loud in a politically correct America — they are both Black.

Was race a factor in the decision of Colin Powell to repudiate his party’s nominee and friend of 25 years, Sen. John McCain, two weeks before Election Day, and to endorse Barack Obama?

Gen. Powell does not deny it, contending only that race was not the only or decisive factor. “If I had only that fact in mind,” he told Tom Brokaw, “I could have done this six, eight, ten months ago.”

Yet, in hailing Barack as a “transformational figure” whose election would “electrify our country … (and) the world,” Powell seems to testify to the centrality of Barack’s ethnicity to his decision.

For what else is there about this freshman senator, who has no significant legislative accomplishment, to transform our politics and to electrify the world, other than the fact that he would be the nation’s first African-American president?

Powell’s endorsement follows that of another African-American icon, Congressman John Lewis of Selma Bridge fame, who switched allegiance from Hillary to Barack, while Clinton still had a fighting chance to win.

When Lewis deserted her in February, he, too, claimed a Road-to-Damascus experience, to have seen a transformational figure:

“Something’s happening in America, something some of us did not see coming … Barack Obama has tapped into something that is extraordinary. … It’s a movement. It’s a spiritual event.”

Lewis’ desertion, however, was not unrelated to a primary challenge in his Atlanta district and angry constituent demands to know why he was not backing the first black with a real chance at winning the White House.

Powell was under no such pressure. Hence, what he did, and why, are subjects of media and political speculation.

Understandably, Powell is being hailed by the Obama media as a profile in courage. Equally understandably, his endorsement of Obama is said by Republicans to smack of ingratitude, opportunism, and even vindictiveness toward a party to which he owes his fame and career.

Here was a man who was rendered extraordinary honors by three Republican presidents. Reagan raised him from Army colonel to national security adviser, the first African-American in the post. George H. W. Bush named him chairman of the Joint Chiefs, over hundreds of more senior officers. George W. Bush made him the first African-American secretary of state.

While he may have gotten well with the capital elite with this decision, Powell has wounded his party’s nominee at a point of maximum vulnerability, a friend who supported him on the war, and agreed with Powell on the need for a larger invasion force. And Powell has embraced a liberal Democrat who owes his nomination to his fierce opposition to the war Powell sold the nation, a war Obama calls the worst blunder in U.S. history and a manifestation of a lack of judgment by those, like Colin Powell, who launched it.

Joe Biden, who voted to authorize the war, now calls his vote a mistake. Yet, Powell endorses him, too, while repudiating a McCain-Palin ticket that continues to defend his war.

And the scatter-gun attack Powell launched on the GOP ticket — hitting McCain for fumbling the financial crisis, choosing Sarah Palin, pressing Barack’s association with William Ayers, and not defending Obama’s Christianity — suggests a man with scores to settle with the party of George W. Bush.

Yet, what kind of Republican can Powell be when he professes deep concern that McCain might choose Supreme Court justices like John Roberts and Sam Alito? Every Republican in the Senate voted for Roberts. All but one voted for Alito.

Does Colin Powell have a problem with Antonin Scalia? Is the general a Ruth Bader Ginsberg Republican?

There is speculation Powell feels badly used by the neocons who cherry-picked and hyped the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction he presented at the U.N., and that he harbors a distrust of the neocons now reassembling around McCain.

If so, he surely has a case, and should have made it.

But in the last analysis, one comes back to the forbidden issue of ethnicity. For example, would Powell have endorsed Hillary, had she won the nomination? After all, her views on Iraq — having supported the war and never apologized — are even closer to Powell’s than Obama’s.

The issue cannot be avoided.

After all, we are in a year where Obama defeated the wife of “our first black president,” Bill Clinton, 90-10 in the black wards of Philly, and African-Americans, in one poll, are going 94-1 for Barack. And a Republican ticket that is hammering Barack on his ties to William Ayers fears to bring up his far closer ties to the Afro-racist anti-American Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Organizing a fundraiser last year for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, an Hispanic Democrat, Lionel Sosa of San Antonio, a political strategist for Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, said, “Blood runs thicker than politics.”

Mr. Sosa is perhaps more candid about his motives than folks in D.C.

-Tribal Politics

The thought process here goes: Powell is Black. Obama is Black. Powell is a Republican. Obama is a Democrat. Therefore, Powell supports Obama only because they are both black. So, vote Republican because we care about issues, not race.

Hmmm. What about Chuck Hagel and Chris Buckley? Aren’t they also Republicans for Obama? In truth, I find this whole line of thinking quite sinister. It reminds me of a comment made by Australian Tennis Player Lleyton Hewitt in a match against American James Blake, who is half-black.

In a five set match with James Blake at the 2001 U.S. Open, Hewitt complained to umpire Andres Egli and asked for a black linesman to be moved after being called for two foot-faults in the third set. “Look at him,” Hewitt said, gesturing at the linesman. He approached the chair umpire and, pointing first to the offending linesman and then to Blake, said,”Look at him and you tell me what the similarity is.”
-Wikipedia

It is this type of thinking that leads to comments like this one here responding to Buchanan’s blog post:

friscokid said:

Powell is an intelligent and capable bureaucrat, but that’s all he is. He was used by the Republican Party to put a visible black face high up in the government, but he’s really just a spineless person (kind of like Joe Biden, come to think of it). Why else would he have allowed himself to be used by people
who, as is apparent now, he didn’t even like and who’s ideas he didn’t support.

Powell’s allegience to Obama is probably indicative of what we can expect from most black appointees in an Obama administration: if there is any friction or disagreement between a white person and a black person, we can count on black bureaucrats to side with blacks every time. Tribalism, which is what we’ve been taught is wrong, and which was waning, will have a sudden resurgence, in my opinion. The concept of payback for past injustices will also certainly be a factor in the intensity of the tribalism that we can expect to see.

Barack Obama is just one man. Even if you think he’s fair, his appointees are going to be running our daily lives. I don’t think most people are going to like what they do.

-Tribal Politics, comments section

Hello? It’s the economy, Stupid. But, apparently, this is how many frame issues in their mind. In an election as important as any in some 75 years, it would be nice to see the issue of race handled with greater dignity and less suspicion.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Related posts:

• Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama
• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• Patrick Buchanan throws in the towel
• Now Obama is back to not being good enough?

I caught a story in the Wall Street Journal today about Paul Volcker’s impact on the Obama campaign that bears passing on (hat tip Barry Ritholtz). One reason people have become more comfortable with Obama over time is because his economic team is absolutely the best: Austan Goosbee, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker.

For me, the addition of Volcker to Obama’s team is especially impactful. The former Fed chair is known as responsible monetary steward and the man who stopped runaway inflation in the early 1980s. As much as Alan Greenspan’s star has fallen, Paul Volcker’s has risen.

Mr. Volcker has emerged as a top economic adviser to Sen. Barack Obama during a presidential campaign dominated by a global financial crisis. Their growing bond is paying dividends for each man.

Mr. Volcker delivers gravitas and credibility to Sen. Obama, people in the Obama camp say, as well as ideas and approaches to the economic crisis. “Volcker whispering in Obama’s ear will make even Republicans comfortable, because he’s a hero of the right and a supporter of a strong dollar,” says John Tamny, a supply-side economist and Republican….

For Mr. Volcker, a connection with Sen. Obama could help burnish his record as Fed chairman. The cigar-chomping central banker from 1979 to 1987, he received blame for driving up interest rates and tipping the U.S. into the deepest recession since the Great Depression. But Mr. Volcker is just as well known for taming the runaway inflation of that era. His stock has risen in recent months as his gruff warnings about the risks of deregulating the financial sector have come to look prescient. His successor’s reputation, meanwhile, has come under a cloud. Alan Greenspan is under criticism that the low interest rates and deregulatory ideology of his tenure contributed to today’s crisis….

The two men have developed an ease with each other, say aides, even as their styles appear to differ: Sen. Obama, who tends to use the Socratic method from his law-school training, examines all points of view and debates them. With a more formal and direct demeanor, Mr. Volcker likes to go straight to solutions.

In last week’s final presidential debate, after Republican John McCain raised questions about his rival’s ties, Sen. Obama said, “Let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker…who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House….”

“I just want to be helpful, because I believe Sen. Obama — in his person, in his ideas and in his ability to understand and articulate both our needs and our hopes — brings the strong and fresh leadership we need,” Mr. Volcker said in an interview in New York. Mr. Volcker wouldn’t provide details of his policy suggestions or his personal relationship with Sen. Obama….

The bond between Messrs. Obama and Volcker started with a dinner invitation. In June 2007, Mark Gallogly, co-founder of Centerbridge Partners, a New York private-investment firm, and an early supporter of Sen. Obama, invited a dozen financial executives to meet the senator, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. President Gary Cohn, Merrill Lynch & Co. President Greg Fleming and Mr. Volcker.

Along with the invitation, Mr. Volcker received from Mr. Gallogly a “briefing package” containing some speeches by Sen. Obama and news articles about him. Mr. Volcker also read the two books written by the senator.

In the private dining room at a Capitol Hill restaurant, Mr. Gallogly seated Mr. Volcker directly across from Sen. Obama, who at the time was considered a long shot to win the Democratic nomination over Sen. Hillary Clinton. Returning late that night on a flight to New York, Mr. Volcker told the group he was “genuinely impressed” with the Illinois senator….

Starting in late summer 2007, Mr. Goolsbee had regular discussions with Mr. Volcker. He incorporated Mr. Volcker’s ideas, including his early concern that the housing downturn would snowball into a larger financial crisis, into Sen. Obama’s policy positions. In a September 2007 speech at Nasdaq, Sen. Obama predicted that because of oversight lapses and abusive practices that cause the public to doubt financial results, “the markets will be ravaged by a crisis in confidence.”

In early January 2008, when Sen. Clinton was pounding her rival over his lack of experience and stature, Sen. Obama phoned Mr. Volcker to ask for his endorsement. (At that time, billionaire investor Warren Buffett had refused to take sides between the Democratic contenders, saying he would support whoever got the nomination.) Mr. Volcker, a long-time Democrat who had mostly stayed out of partisan politics, agreed, and wrote out his statement in longhand.

The presidential candidate’s first big economic address took place in March at Cooper Union in New York. Mr. Volcker’s fingerprints were evident in the speech. The onetime central banker had long been vigilant about strong regulatory oversight; as Fed chairman he rejected big banks’ attempts to repeal Depression-era laws to engage in more risky practices like investment banking. New financial institutions and instruments have since led to the repeal or relaxation of those laws, and Mr. Volcker told Sen. Obama that the U.S. regulatory structure must be strengthened and updated for the 21st century.

With Mr. Volcker sitting in the front row, Sen. Obama told the audience at Cooper Union that the current financial-regulatory framework must be “revamped.” He faulted deregulation for the growing economic crisis. “Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it……”

Source
Volcker Makes a Comeback as Part of Obama Brain Trust – WSJ

Related posts:

• Infighting begins within Obama’s team
• Is Obama really “Change we can believe in?”
• Presidential debates crucial in test of economic leadership
• Warren Buffett: Don’t expect miracles from Obama
• 1987

Yesterday, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican, endorsed Democratic candidate Barack Obama for President despite long-standing support for John McCain. While I agree with the reasoning in many of the statements he made as to why he has endorsed Obama instead of McCain, it is unclear what, if any, impact this will have on the U.S. Presidential election.

Given Powell’s stature in U.S. politics, it can only help Obama and hurt McCain. As for his statements themselves, please see the 7-minute YouTube video below.

Related posts:

• Quote of the day: “That One”
• Are the polls nonsense?
• Barack Obama: candidate profile
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• Obama wins debate

Below are the videos of Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin on “Saturday Night Live.” I thought it showed good humor on her part to be on the show. I give her full credit despite what some critics might say. Take a look.

Related posts:

• Why Sarah Palin was a good pick for the GOP
• Saturday Night Live Grades the Stress Tests
• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• Palin exceeds expectations but still loses debate
• Get ready for Biden v. Palin tonight

Jon Stewart had another very funny take on the political scene last night. He sees John McCain as a modern-day Dr. Frankenstein whose creation (an angry Republican base) has taken on a life of its own. Watch McCain’s reactions to angry yells from his rallies. Very interesting.

George Bush’s former press secretary Ari Fleischer was on the Daily Show last night as well. Stewart had a pretty funny lead-in to the show.

Related posts:

• Jon Stewart’s indictment of CNBC
• Jon Stewart: His Gaffe-in is great comic relief
• John McCain on SNL
• Wilting Over Waffles
• The 3 a.m. moment – McCain blows it

Conservative U.S. Columnist Kathleen Parker was a guest on Stephen Colbert’s show last night. She gained notoriety for her criticism of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate. Below is a clip of her on Colbert giving her two cents on whether she has changed her mind about the candidates and why.

Related posts:

• Quote of the day: John McCain
• Edwards backing eliminates need for Clinton
• Spam E-mail on John McCain’s running mate
• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points

This comes from the Huffington Post:

“Jobs, baby, jobs.”

Related posts:

• Hillary Rodham Clinton ran a good campaign
• Quote of the day: John McCain
• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• My love-hate relationship with Hillary Rodham Clinton
• Hillary Clinton backer backlash

This comes from Politico:

Reprising a line she’s been delivering on stage with McCain since the GOP convention, Palin said of her running mate this morning in Virginia Beach: “Since he won’t say it on his own behalf, I’m gonna say it for my running mate here: There is only one man in this race who has ever really fought for you.”

Then McCain took the mic and said: “I”ve been fighting for this country since I was 17-years-old and I have the scars to prove it.”

Related posts:

• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• Spam E-mail on John McCain’s running mate
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• Rumors are true: McCain almost switched parties
• Quote of the day: John McCain

Talking about how he will fare against Barack Obama in the upcoming third and last U.S. Presidential Debate, John McCain said:

“We’re going to spend a lot of time and after I whip his you-know-what in this debate, we’re going to be going out 24/7.
-Huffington Post

Related posts:

• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• John McCain: candidate profile
• McCain takes center stage
• Obama wins debate
• Quote of the day: “That One”

This from Politico. It’s hard to say at this point how this will change the race for the White House.

Sarah Palin violated the trust Alaskans placed in her as their governor in how she handled the events surrounding the firing of a state official who had refused to dismiss her ex-brother-in-law from his job as a state trooper, according to a legislative report released Friday night.

The long-awaited report into a scandal that’s become known as “Troopergate” found that Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, fired the state’s public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, partly because he refused to fire Palin’s ex-brother-in-law, Mike Wooten, who was locked in a bitter custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann.

But the report — commissioned by the Legislature and carried out by an independent investigator — also found that Palin was within her “constitutional and statutory authority” to dismiss Monegan.

Meg Stapleton, a spokeswoman for John McCain’s presidential campaign, asserted that the report showed Palin “acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan” and that “the Palins were completely justified in their concern regarding Trooper Wooten given his violent and rogue behavior.”

Related posts:

• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• Palin exceeds expectations but still loses debate
• Sarah Palin on “Saturday Night Live”
• Palin: Asia speech re-casts her as Libertarian and slams Obama on China
• Palin: a tidbit I received from a friend by a Wasilla resident (update)

The YouTube video below is gaining a wide audience on the Internet. It shows an Ohio blogger interviewing some McCain-Palin supporters after a speech and rally by Sarah Palin in that state earlier this week.

The blogger’s question to attendees of the rally is fairly straightforward: “Do you think Barack Obama is a terrorist?”

Watch the video to see the answers.

Related posts
Is Barack Obama palling around with Terrorists?

Related posts:

• Obama gets 75,000 at a rally
• Obama Girl is back
• Palin: Asia speech re-casts her as Libertarian and slams Obama on China
• Obama to re-authorise three provisions of Patriot Act
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points

Apparently, John McCain did even worse than I thought in last night’s debate. He and Barack Obama both failed to present a step-by-step plan as to what they were going to do about America’s banking crisis. They both merely rehashed old plans they have been discussing for months. But, McCain failed more in that he presented something old as something new. And it wasn’t even his.

Remember that new mortgage plan he touted last night and that his campaign released to much fanfare? It’s already in the bailout package.

Housing Wire says:

In a heated debate Tuesday, Senator John McCain repeatedly touted his plan to bail out the ailing housing industry.

“As President of the United States, I would order the secretary of the Treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes, at the diminished value of those homes,” he said.

McCain’s proposed plan, dubbed the “Homeownership Resurgence Plan” by his campaign, consists of the government renegotiating $300 billion in bad mortgages so borrowers can afford to stay in their homes.

“We’ve got to give some trust and confidence back to America,” McCain said Tuesday. “I know how to do that, my friends, and it’s my proposal. It’s not Senator Obama’s proposal. It’s not President Bush’s proposal.”

Critics argue, however, that the plan is strikingly reminiscent of Treasury Department secretary Henry Paulson’s bailout plan, which was passed by the Senate and signed into law Friday. Specifically, the plan echoes Section 110 of the law.

Hmmm. What’s more is McCain’s plan is completely unrealistic. Part of the problem is that securitization has taken your mortgage and mine and our neighbors’ and chopped them up into pieces and sold them off to a hundred different people in Mortgage-backed securities. Doing what McCain wants to do and modifying individual mortgages is very difficult in this new securitized world when 100 different people are involved.

Housing Wire again:

McCain’s plan fails to address the complications of securitization, through which investors buy bundles of loans. The current system is not structured for servicers to distinguish and modify individual mortgages from other securitized loans, an issue overlooked by McCain’s move for the government to buy mortgages “directly from servicers.”

Any way you look at it, McCain’s mortgage plan is dead on arrival.

Source
McCain’s Bailout: Déjà Vu All Over Again? – Housing Wire

Related posts:

• The fixed rate mortgage is king again
• How the Bailout deal unraveled yesterday
• The House defeats the bailout plan and shares plunge
• Treasury to Consider Further Measures to Halt Housing Slide
• Treasury Considers Plan to Halt Home Price Slide

Every U.S. Presidential election has a defining moment in the Presidential debates. I think we saw this election’s moment last night.

Throughout last night’s debate, it was obvious that John McCain had a sense of disdain for Obama he could barely conceal. However, when he called his opponent for the Presidency “That One,” he stepped over the line in a way that will probably cost him the White House.

Let’s be clear, I think Obama did not address the issues that are currently most important to the economy. And I gave his debate performance poor marks for that fact.

But, McCain’s comment will go down with George H.W. Bush’s looking at his watch or Ronald Reagan’s, “there you go again” quip in presidential debate lore.

See quote and video below.

Two minutes ago, McCain half-pointing at Obama and calling him, in the third person, that one.

The sense of seeing in real time a gesture that will be regretted for a long time.
-James Fallows, The Atlantic

Related posts
Obama wins debate

Related posts:

• Quote of the day: John McCain
• Obama wins debate
• John McCain: candidate profile
• Barack Obama: candidate profile
• How do the Presidents rank?

Check out Jon Stewart’s take on this.

Related posts:

• SNL skewers Barack Obama
• Barack Obama ushers in a new era in America
• Barack Obama: candidate profile
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• Barack Obama: Great story about his mother

Last night Barack Obama and John McCain had at it in their second Presidential debate in the U.S. John McCain has been slipping in the polls and needed a game-changer to break Obama’s momentum. He didn’t get it. Pundits and polls agree that Obama won the might, with CNN’s poll showing a big 54 to 43% advantage for Obama.

Nevertheless, my opinion from viewing the debate is that both candidates were on auto-pilot. Neither addressed the stock meltdown – Earth to candidates.

Neither made specific proposals for changing the freeze in credit markets. These two just pulled out the same tired commentary that they have been making for months. And they focused much too much on taking pot shots at each other than they should have.

The debate was boring and disappointing. I give a big fat C- to Obama and a D+ to McCain.

CNN seems to think otherwise:

A national poll of debate watchers suggests that Barack Obama won the second presidential debate.

Fifty-four percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey conducted after the debate ended said that Obama did the best job in the debate, with 30 percent saying John McCain performed better.

Watch: Debate analysis

A majority, 54 percent, said Obama seemed to be the stronger leader during the debate, to 43 percent for McCain. By a greater than two to one margin — 65 percent to 28 percent — viewers thought Obama was more likeable during the debate.

“Obama had made some gains on the leadership issue even before the debate,” said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “McCain’s advantage on leadership shrunk from 19 points in September to just five points this weekend. If Obama can use this debate to convince Americans that he is a stronger leader than McCain, he may be difficult to defeat.”

Watch: Reading the candidates’ faces

A majority of debate watchers polled thought Obama was more intelligent, by a 57 percent to 25 percent margin over McCain. Twice as many debate watchers also thought Obama more clearly expressed than McCain, with 60 percent giving the nod to the Democratic nominee and 30 percent to his GOP opponent.

Hands down, debate watchers questioned thought McCain rather than Obama spent more time attacking his opponent: 63 percent said McCain went more negative, as opposed to 17 percent who pointed to Obama.

Half of those polled say Obama answered questions more directly, 13 points ahead of McCain, and by a 14 point advantage debate watchers thought Obama seemed to care more about the probelms of audience members who asked questions.

McCain did come out on top in one category that neither candidate wants to win: By a 16 point margin, debate watchers thought McCain seemed more like a typical politician during the debate.

According to the poll, 64 percent had a favorable opinion of Obama after the debate, up four points from the pre-debate result. McCain’s favorability rating remained unchanged: both before and after the debate percent of those polled had a favorable opinion of the Republican nominee both before and after the debate.

“For McCain, the key finding may be that his favorable rating did not change at all,” Holland said. “It’s unclear whether Obama will gain any momentum from Tuesday night’s debate, but it looks like McCain will not do so, and for a candidate who has consistently been a few points behind in national polls, that’s not a good sign.”

The poll suggests that independent voters thought Obama won the debate. Fifty-four percent of those identifying themselves as independent say Obama performed best, with 28 percent saying that McCain did the better job.

Among Democrats, 85 percent say Obama won, with just 5 percent saying McCain was the winner. Among Republicans, 64 percent say McCain won, with 16 percent saying Obama won the night.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted by telephone with 675 adult Americans who watched the debate. All interviews were taken after the end of the debate. The audience for this debate was 38 percent Democratic and 31 percent Republican — very close to the partisan breakdown among all Americans nationwide. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

(Updated with additional poll results)

Don’t be fooled by this CNN article. These two did not get the job done — too much finger pointing and re-hash. My wife left and went to sleep halfway through. We must demand more vision and leadership from McCain and Obama than they showed last might. There is one more debate. Let’s hope we see better then. After all, these are trying times and we need leadership.

Related posts
Tonight’s U.S. Presidential debate

Source
CNN Poll: Obama won the night

Related posts:

• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• Palin exceeds expectations but still loses debate
• Quote of the day: John McCain
• 2010 elections: “Completely out of control” for Democrats
• Quote of the day: “That One”

Tonight we have the opportunity to see the future leader of America address the problems that Americans are having. My hope is that we hear a lot about the economy. And I am not looking for finger-pointing, the blame game, and character smears. I want solutions.

Here are a few things I might like to hear:

• What you are going to do to make sure the money in my bank account is safe
• What you are going to do to make sure small businesses have access to capital and credit
• What you are going to do to make sure the credit crisis does not devolve into a deflationary spiral
• What you are going to do to improve America’s economic future

Listen very closely to what they say. As soon as you hear finger-pointing and character smears, you will know they don’t have any solutions to offer.

Related posts:

• John McCain: candidate profile
• The inflation-deflation debate
• Ahead of G-20, China blames west and west blames China for meltdown
• Ben Bernanke: The Little Dutch Boy
• Great article on Presidential race losers

Very funny!

Related posts:

• Wilting Over Waffles
• Get ready for Biden v. Palin tonight
• Palin exceeds expectations but still loses debate
• John McCain as Dr. Frankenstein?
• Young Hillary Clinton

The NBC News anchor apparently has a sense of humor. I found this video on Brian Williams mimicking Sarah Palin via the Huffington Post. Maybe Brian was miffed because Palin decided to talk to Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson but left him twiddling his thumbs.

Regardless of the reason, it’s pretty funny. The clip is just over 10 minutes long.

Related posts:

• Palin exceeds expectations but still loses debate
• Wilting Over Waffles
• Katie Couric: What newspapers do YOU read?
• Palin: Videos from ABC interview with Charlie Gibson
• Get ready for Biden v. Palin tonight