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

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

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”

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

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”

Edward Harrison here.

In the last post, Marshall commented on the need for the U.S. Presidential candidates to show their mettle in a time of financial volatility. As I write this, the Dow Jones Industrial average has just finished the day up over 400 points — a relief after some heavy selling pressure the past few days. Yet, the need to find a resolution to the crisis has not receded.

I agree 100% with Marshall that our candidates need to demonstrate their bona fides on the economy because I expect little to be done before the new American President is elected and takes office.

We are in a ‘lame duck’ year right before a Presidential Election. Honestly, this market panic could not have come at a worse time because we can expect little true reform from a Bush Administration due to leave office in 4 short months. Lame duck Presidents are not known for their zeal for legislative and regulatory reform.

Moreover, Congress has shown time and again that it is incapable of taking a leadership role on critical matters of reform that require a sober-minded, bipartisan approach.

That leaves us with the U.S. presidential nominees. Neither has made forward-looking statements on how to solve the present crisis. Obama has been more clear on his approach to regulatory reform to prevent future crises, but that is not what America needs right now. When your house is burning down, you don’t need the fire department to prattle on about the need to install smoke detectors and sprinklers to prevent the next fire. You need them to stop the fire from spreading and then to extinguish it.

The likes of WaMu (WM), Morgan Stanley (MS), Wachovia (WB), and AIG (AIG) are all up strongly today. But, renewed attacks on America’s financial system are inevitable; Americans have simply lost faith in the soundness of their banking and financial system. Evidence of that comes from the meltdown of State Street in today’s trading.

Now, more than ever, the United States needs economic leadership. My hope is that the upcoming Presidential debates will give a clue as to who is truly up to the task.

Related posts
The 3 AM call: financial crisis has that phone ringing
Lehman’s bankruptcy: putting the horse before the cart
The Swedish banking crisis response – a model for the future?

Related posts:

• How do the Presidents rank?
• Bush: ever the opportunist, lifts oil drilling ban
• Obama wins debate
• Vision, Tactics, and Stubbornness
• Barack Obama: Great story about his mother

Marshall Auerback here.

This crisis is an audition for the presidency in real time — and an opportunity for a candidate to step up to the plate. If handled the right way, it could decide the election. If it is treated like another political issue, it could fade with the next news cycle.

So far, Obama is failing the test. Not as badly as McCain, but he’s not stepping up. He might be starting to now, but he should be talking to his big endorser, Paul Volcker right now.

Audition time is over. If Barack wants to win the election, he’s got to seize this issue right now. He can deal with the “experience” canard if he handles this right. Volcker endorsed him. Let’s see if that endorsement was sensible.

We are in the midst of the worst financial turmoil since the Great Depression. Absent bold action, matters could well get worse.

Neither the markets nor the ordinary diet of regulatory orders, bank examinations, rating downgrades and investigations can do the job. Extraordinary emergency actions by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to date, while necessary, are also insufficient to resolve the crisis.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giants in the mortgage market, are overextended and now under new government protection. They are not in sufficiently robust shape to meet all the market’s needs.

The fact is that the financial system needs basic, long-term reform, but right now the system is clogged with enormous amounts of toxic real-estate paper that will not repay according to its terms. This paper, in turn, is unable to support huge quantities of structured financial instruments, levered as much as 30 times.

Until there is a new mechanism in place to remove this decaying tissue from the system, the infection will spread, confidence will deteriorate further, and we will have to live through the mother of all credit contractions. This contraction will undercut the financial system, and with it, the broader economy that so far has held up reasonably well.

There is something we can do to resolve the problem. We should move decisively to create a new, temporary resolution mechanism. There are precedents — such as the Resolution Trust Corporation of the late 1980s and early 1990s, as well as the Home Owners Loan Corporation of the 1930s. This new governmental body would be able to buy up the troubled paper at fair market values, where possible keeping people in their homes and businesses operating. Like the RTC, this mechanism should have a limited life and be run by nonpartisan professional management.

Such a stabilizing mechanism would accomplish four much-needed tasks:

- First, by buying paper that otherwise is effectively not trading, it would help restore liquidity to the marketplace and help markets to function more fluidly again.

- Second, by warehousing the troubled paper for a longer period than, for instance, the Fed’s discount window typically should or could, it would allow for a more orderly liquidation of this paper, and the chance for much of it to recover a portion of its value.

- Third, by giving the agency the ability to manage mortgages with flexibility to keep people in their homes and businesses running, it should lessen the number of foreclosures. This, in turn, would help moderate the decline in real estate values and the deterioration of neighborhoods, thus supporting house prices that in fact lie at the heart of the crisis.

- Fourth, where necessary, like the RTC of the 1980s, this new mechanism can assist the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in resolving sick institutions that are so clogged with the troubled paper they cannot continue as independent entities. However, we would hope that purchasing the mortgage-related paper will minimize the need to provide emergency, short-term assistance to solvent banking institutions.

It is certainly the case that the new institution we are proposing will in the short run require serious money. That will involve a risk to the taxpayer; but the institution, administered by professionals, means that ultimate gains to the taxpayer are also possible.

Moreover, a failure to act boldly in the fashion we are suggesting would cost the taxpayer and the country far more. The pathology of this crisis is that unless you get ahead of it and deal with it from strength, it devours the weakest link in the chain and then moves on to devour the next weakest link. A deteriorating financial system, diminished economic activity, loss of jobs and loss of revenues to the government is enormously costly. And the cost to our citizens’ well-being is incalculable.

Crisis times require stern measures. America has done well in the past to face up to economic turmoil, take strong measures, and put our problems behind us. RTC-like mechanisms have worked well in past crises. Now is the time to take a similarly forceful step.

The American economy still has enormous underlying strengths. What we need, and in part are proposing, is a road map to financial stability.

Mr. Brady was U.S. Treasury secretary from 1988-1993. Mr. Ludwig was U.S. comptroller of the currency from 1993 to 1998. Mr. Volcker was chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979-1987.

Source
Resurrect the Resolution Trust Corp. – Nicholas F. Brady, Eugene, A, Ludwig, and Paul A. Volcker, WSJ

Related posts:

• Lehman’s collapse: The money fund “ice-nine wasn’t noticed… at first’”
• Volcker warns how serious things have become
• U.S. has begun to drain liquidity
• The failure to address the looming too-big-to-fail issue
• The U.S. financial system is effectively insolvent

The latest Zogby/Reuters poll shows Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama with a 2 point lead over Sen. John McCain. Obama leads by 47 to 45 percent amongst likely voters. This is a marked turnaround as McCain led in this poll by 5% before the conventions in August.

The key issue to the change have been the economy, with Obama scoring significant gains amongst independents and women on that score.

Below is a snippet of the Reuters story covering that poll.

Democrat Barack Obama has a 2-point lead in the U.S. presidential race on Republican John McCain, whose choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate helped shore up support for both candidates, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

Obama leads McCain among likely voters by 47 percent to 45 percent, within the poll’s 3.1 percent margin of error. He gained ground in the last month among independent and women voters and on the question of who could best manage the faltering U.S. economy.

Obama wiped out McCain’s 5-point edge in a Reuters/Zogby poll taken in August before the nominating conventions, a sign the Arizona senator could be drifting back to earth from what other opinion polls showed was a post-convention surge.

“We’re back to where we always thought we would be — in a very competitive race,” pollster John Zogby said.

The poll, taken Thursday through Saturday, follows a hectic month in the race to the November 4 election as both parties held their nominating conventions and both candidates selected their vice presidential running mates.

McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, an anti-abortion and pro-gun first-term governor from Alaska, as his No. 2 set off a political firestorm that helped stoke conservative enthusiasm for the Republican ticket.

-Reuters

Related posts:

• Obama wins debate
• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• Barack Obama: candidate profile
• McCain takes center stage
• Polls: George W. Bush at new low

The Economist, like many other Libertarian-minded publications and individuals, has soured on John McCain. One week ago their cover page story was “Bring back the real McCain” and this past week their storyline on McCain was that the man simply has poor judgment. What gives?

What gives is that McCain, above all else is a politician — and an opportunistic one at that. This is certainly the view the BBC audio documentary of John McCain that I profiled last week gives.

It has to be said that the Palin pick was a calculated gamble by McCain, one of the riskiest plays we have seen in U.S. presidential politics — certainly more risky than the Dan Quayle pick by George H. W. Bush in 1988. However, the pick is paying off in spades right now. Palin has been a darling of the media, she gave a thrilling performance at the Republican National Convention and she has taken the spotlight completely off Barack Obama.

Daryl Cagle, MSNBC.com

But, John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate says more about John McCain’s judgment than it says about Sarah Palin. It was an obvious ploy to shore up his credentials amongst evangelicals of the south, who have fled the Democratic party in droves after the dismantling of Jim Crow by Lyndon Johnson. It was also a ploy to potentially siphon off Hillary Clinton supporters from Barack Obama. Race is still a factor in America, and many of those who voted for Clinton in the primaries may be looking for an excuse to support anyone but Barack Obama. And, most importantly, the Palin pick was a naked ploy to win back the Maverick, change-the-status-quo imae, McCain has cultivated throughout his career. Barack Obama was stealing his thunder and he needed an antidote — think of Sarah Palin as kryptonite to a Superman-like Obama.

But, more importantly, his picking Palin showed McCain — contrary to his reputation — to be a typical politician, yet again willing to sacrifice ideals for votes. He picked Palin to be candidate for the second highest office in the country in a rushed and chaotic process, throwing to the wind arguments about foreign policy credentials and experience. In retrospect, it is obvious that she was not fully vetted and that McCain picked her out of pure political calculation, having only met her once before deciding on her as his running mate.

The Economist

The Economist says this about her selection:

Mrs Palin was greeted like the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan by the delegates, furious at her mauling at the hands of the “liberal media”. And she delivered a tub-thumping speech, underlining her record as a reforming governor and advocate of more oil-drilling, and warning her enemies not to underestimate her (“the difference between a hockey mum and a pitbull—lipstick”). But once the cheering and the chanting had died down, serious questions remained.

The political calculations behind Mr McCain’s choice hardly look robust. Mrs Palin is not quite the pork-busting reformer that her supporters claim. She may have become famous as the governor who finally killed the infamous “bridge to nowhere”—the $220m bridge to the sparsely inhabited island of Gravina, Alaska. But she was in favour of the bridge before she was against it (and told local residents that they weren’t “nowhere to her”). As mayor of Wasilla, a metropolis of 9,000 people, she initiated annual trips to Washington, DC, to ask for more earmarks from the state’s congressional delegation, and employed Washington lobbyists to press for more funds for her town.

Nor is Mrs Palin well placed to win over the moderate and independent voters who hold the keys to the White House. Mr McCain’s main political problem is not energising his base; he enjoys more support among Republicans than Mr Obama does among Democrats. His problem is reaching out to swing voters at a time when the number of self-identified Republicans is up to ten points lower than the number of self-identified Democrats. Mr McCain needs to attract roughly 55% of independents and 15% of Democrats to win the election. But it is hard to see how a woman who supports the teaching of creationism rather than contraception, and who is soon to become a 44-year-old grandmother, helps him with soccer moms in the Philadelphia suburbs. A Rasmussen poll found that the Palin pick made 31% of undecided voters less likely to plump for Mr McCain and only 6% more likely.

The moose in the room, of course, is her lack of experience. When Geraldine Ferraro was picked as Walter Mondale’s running-mate, she had served in the House for three terms. Even the hapless Dan Quayle, George Bush senior’s sidekick, had served in the House and Senate for 12 years. Mrs Palin, who has been the governor of a state with a population of 670,000 for less than two years, is the most inexperienced candidate for a mainstream party in modern history.

Inexperienced and Bush-level incurious. She has no record of interest in foreign policy, let alone expertise. She once told an Alaskan magazine: “I’ve been so focused on state government; I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq.” She obtained an American passport only last summer to visit Alaskan troops in Germany and Kuwait. This not only blunts Mr McCain’s most powerful criticism of Mr Obama. It also raises serious questions about the way he makes decisions.

Irrespective of how Palin was picked, she is working out quite well for the Republicans — they now lead in the polls. The Democrats have been unable to figure out how to get after her and have been quite condescending and snobbish in their efforts to rebut her qualifications for the job.

The Democrats had better watch out at the debates too. Karen Tumulty of Time Magazine recently said, after watching video of Palin’s 2006 Alaska debate performance that one “saw last week that she knows how to wrestle with a TelePrompTer and a prepared text, but Sarah Palin is also very good on her feet.”

Where do I stand? I wasn’t going to vote for McCain anyway — he has long ago shown that he is mostly a political animal and not a true reformer with a temperament for governing. And although I like Palin’s verve and charm, her politics are simply too extreme — I am even less likely to vote for McCain now. I sense many moderates or independents feel the same way. However, the Republican base is now fired up and ready to go like Obama’s supporters.

Whether you like Palin or not, she has definitely changed the political calculus in this election.

Related posts
Palin: a tidbit I received from a friend by a Wasilla resident
Why Sarah Palin was a good pick for the GOP

Sources
The woman from nowhere, The Economist
Re: That Palin Debate, Time Magazine’s Swampland
Obama Palin and the Press, The Moderate Voice

Related posts:

• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• Quote of the day: John McCain
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• Spam E-mail on John McCain’s running mate
• Why Sarah Palin was a good pick for the GOP

In the US, the Republican National Convention has begun and as we prepare to watch the presumptive Republican nominee for President, it bears noting a little background into his character and past.

One reputable source of background material has been the BBC. They have released part one of a two-part audio documentary series timed for the conventions called “The Presidential Contenders,” profiling Barack Obama and John McCain. I listened to part one on Obama and profiled it last week. This week, it’s McCain’s turn. The audio documentary gives a forthright, unhyped portrayal of McCain in his earlier years, especially during his rise from former POW to congressman and Senator.

About his leadership style, a buddy from Arizona said this:

“John is still the rambunctious guy he always was. He goes against the grain — is defiant sometimes. And I love that in my president.”

His fellow Arizona Senator, Dennis DeConcini, a Democrat who served from 1977-1995 and another member of the Keating Five, said the following about him:

“I found him to be a very temperamental person who has difficulties with anyone who disagrees with him…. I just came to the conclusion that this guy was really not very stable in my judgment.”

He struggled to live up to the family “tough guy” reputation and he didn’t excel in schoolwork. But, he was strong-willed, social and personable. These character traits and a sense of opportunism moved him forward in his political career. His problematic temper and his lack of forethought regarding the consequences of his behavior are also covered with many on-the-record quotes from those who knew him as a POW, in the Senate, and in private life in Arizona.

The overall picture? McCain is a down-to-earth, practical and outgoing but opportunistic character with a very strong will and a sense of duty and personal honor as core to his sense of self. His extreme ambition has made him often seem opportunistic or disloyal, while his disregard for consequences and him explosive temper have earned him a reputation as a volatile person.

In this biography, his personal character traits seem remarkably similar to George W. Bush’s, both in their positives and negatives.

I highly recommend listening to this mp3 recording. It clocks in at just over 20 minutes. Click below to listen and judge for yourself.

Source:

DocArchive: The Presidential Contenders – Part Two

Related post
Barack Obama: candidate profile

Related posts:

• Barack Obama: candidate profile
• McCain takes center stage
• Quote of the day: John McCain
• John McCain has poor judgment, but Palin is working out quite well
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points

John McCain made a surprise choice in choosing Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, for his running mate. While this is a risky choice, it definitely balances the ticket.

Below is a snippet of the story at the Wall Street Journal. This will be an interesting election.

Sen. John McCain picked first-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate Friday, adding a little-known but reform-minded woman to his ticket. At a rally in Dayton, Ohio, he said she has “strong principles, a fighting spirit and deep compassion,” and praised her record of fighting corruption.

“She’s exactly what this country needs to help me fight …the same old Washington politics of me first and country second,” he told the raucus crowd.

Gov. Palin thus became the first woman named to a spot on a Republican ticket. “I am honored,” she said as she stood by a beaming Gov. McCain in her first few seconds in the national spotlight.

The move is the most dramatic in a series of efforts to appeal to Hillary Clinton supporters still disappointed that she didn’t capture the Democratic nomination. Gov. Palin also reinforces Sen. McCain’s reformer image. She took on her state’s political establishment that had been rocked by an FBI corruption investigation.

It’s an untraditional pick, given that reliably Republican Alaska has never been a battleground state in the past, though Barack Obama has tried to put it into play. She’s much less well known that other candidates who were believed to be on Sen. McCain’s short list.

“She’s not from these parts and she’s not from Washington but when you get to know her you’re going to be as impressed as I am,” he said.

The pick was not problem free, though. Democrats immediately pounced on her thin resume, which runs the risk of undercutting a central attack by Sen. McCain against Sen. Obama: That he isn’t ready to serve as president. The ability of Sen. McCain’s vice president to step into the top job is seen as particularly important given his age: He turns 72 today and would be the oldest person ever to enter the White House.

Sources
Sarah Palin, Wikipedia
McCain Taps Gov. Sarah Palin As Presidential Running Mate, WSJ

Related posts:

• Quote of the day: John McCain
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• John McCain has poor judgment, but Palin is working out quite well
• Spam E-mail on John McCain’s running mate
• Get ready for Biden v. Palin tonight

Just hours after Barack Obama picked Joe Biden for his running in the U.S. presidential elections (more on that soon), I got a hilarious spam e-mail with a subject line that really tempted me to open it:

McCain picks Paris Hilton as running mate

Spammer ingenuity.

Related posts:

• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• Quote of the day: John McCain
• The other Mrs. McCain
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• John McCain has poor judgment, but Palin is working out quite well

This has to be staged. And where the heck is this pic from? I got it from the Daily Kos.

Related posts:

• John McCain as Dr. Frankenstein?
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• Quote of the day: John McCain
• Quote of the day: John McCain
• John McCain: candidate profile

Ben Smith has a good column on McCain’s bellicose response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia. Even George W. Bush has shown more statesmanship here.

‘Invasion of Georgia’—a ‘3 a.m. moment’

When the North Caucasus slid into war Thursday night, it presented Senators John McCain and Barack Obama with a true “3 a.m. moment,” and their responses to the crisis suggested dramatic differences in how each candidate, as president, would lead America in moments of international crisis.

While Obama offered a response largely in line with statements issued by democratically elected world leaders, including President Bush, first calling on both sides to negotiate, John McCain took a remarkably—and uniquely—more aggressive stance, siding clearly with Georgia’s pro-Western leaders and placing the blame for the conflict entirely on Russia.

The abrupt crisis in an obscure hotspot had the features of the real foreign policy situations presidents face—not the clean hypotheticals of candidates’ white papers and debating points.

Read the rest of his story to get the full view. It is very enlightening regarding temperament and foreign policy creds.

Related posts:

• McCain and his anti-Russia rhetoric
• I probably can’t vote for McCain
• Russia to re-arm: Obama’s first test
• The other Mrs. McCain
• Quote of the day: John McCain

I am sufficiently concerned about John McCain and his foreign policy creds to write a blurb about his anti-Russia rhetoric and its likely effect now that Russia is on a rampage in Georgia.

My colleague Lisa Lerer, traveling with McCain, sends over his tough comments on the escalation in Georgia:

In a statement at the Des Moines airport, John McCain called on Russia to “immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovreign Georgian territory.”

He asked the United States and EU to put diplomatic pressure on Russia “to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen.”

McCain also called on the U.S. to convene an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council, but that already took place this morning at Russia’s request.

In keeping with McCain’s hard-line tack toward Moscow, this is far tougher language than that from the Bush administration.

“We urge restraint on all sides — that violence would be curtailed and that direct dialogue could ensue in order to help resolve their differences,” said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

-Politico, 8 Aug 2008

Does McCain have the ability, restraint and mindset to actually put America on a sure foreign policy footing given the latest events? His vitriolic statement seems to say no.

Related posts:

• The 3 a.m. moment – McCain blows it
• Russia to re-arm: Obama’s first test
• I probably can’t vote for McCain
• The other Mrs. McCain
• Question of the day: Would we go to war for Georgia?

Apparently the rumors are true, despite what McCain now says. He almost became a Democrat. Jake Tapper has uncovered the story which proves it, buried since 2006.

Remember how McCain blew up at Elisabeth Bumiller when she asked him about his wanting to be on Kerry’s ticket in 2004 (like Lieberman obviously wants now)? His dealing with the Democrats is a touchy subject for John McCain. He obviously wants to ingratiate himself with the party’s base. And reminding people that he has been cozying up to the other side is not going to be a way to win the hearts and minds of the conservatives in his party who already dislike him.

So, McCain is flip-flopping on everything under the sun from abortion to oil drilling. But the evidence is clear. He wanted to be Kerry’s running mate in 2004. And he did consider switching parties in 2001. Here’s the evidence. And here’s the pdf to go with the video.

Related posts:

• I probably can’t vote for McCain
• Why pro-choice Dems have nothing to like about John McCain
• The other Mrs. McCain
• Quote of the day: John McCain
• McCain and his anti-Russia rhetoric

This is the title from a post on Time Magazine’s blog, Swampland. The blog links to Elisabeth Bumiller of the NYTimes’ evaluation of the similarities and differences between John McCain and George W. Bush on key issues.

Both the blog’s synopsis and Bumiller’s article are worth the read.

Related posts:

• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• John McCain has poor judgment, but Palin is working out quite well
• McCain takes center stage
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• Obama’s message of hope is gone

I’m sure you’ve heard that John McCain had another wife before he met Cindy McCain. I came across an in-depth expose about her from the Daily Mail in the UK of all places. Personally, I see the Daily Mail as a bit of a rag, but the article is something to ponder.

Daily Mail article on Carol McCain.

Related posts:

• Quote of the day: John McCain
• John McCain as Dr. Frankenstein?
• McCain takes center stage
• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• Rumors are true: McCain almost switched parties

This past week, I attended an Investment luncheon to hear Greg Valliere, the chief political strategist with the Stanford Washington Research Group. He had a number of important things to say regarding the economic implications of political decision-making in Washington and of this year’s U.S. presidential election. I agree with most of his analysis and will write the rest of this blog entry from his vantage point. Where I disagree or have a specific point to make, I will preface my comments accordingly.

His three big themes were:

• There has been a dramatic rise in the size of government, especially in regulatory agencies
• Taxes are going to rise — in particular capital gains taxes
• The election in November has big implications on investment strategy

[First, in the interest of full disclosure, I will briefly say where I stand on the political and economic spectrum. I consider myself to be a pro-free market Libertarian. I believe in a lightly regulated free-market economy with regulation as a check on market power. On politics, my Libertarian views make me closest to Ron Paul, Barack Obama and Mike Gravel of all the U.S. Presidential nominees. I admit to being partial to Barack Obama and feel he would make the best U.S. President.]

Current Economic Situation
According to Valliere, we have just witnessed one of the biggest increases in the size of government in modern U.S. history. Now, I’m not talking about the increases due to the War on Terror — that’s been going on for nearly seven years now — but rather what’s happening right now. And it’s all because of the subprime crisis.

Basically, the U.S. Federal Reserve simply was caught asleep at the switch and was not aware of how important the subprime sector was and the potential for contagion in other asset markets. Now, we have a full blown crisis on our hands and the Fed has done what it can to contain the damage by lowering interest rates to 2%, by lending to investment banks, by taking on questionable collateral in exchange for rock-solid treasurys, and by bailing out Bear Stearns.

But, now the Fed is done. Interest rates are not going any lower because the Fed is constrained by rising inflation. They are also worried about the Dollar. Their next move — and this won’t be for another 10-11 months at least — will be up. That said, all the risks are to the downside in the economy.

My comment: what I take from these statements is that the Fed wishes it could do more given the downside risks to economic growth. But, it is constrained by the low dollar and rising inflation, especially with prices at the pump where inflation has its most visible and problematic manifestation. That means that, as much as the Fed wishes it could support the economy, it simply cannot and will not. This is not good for stock market investments, especially in cyclical companies. One needs to be as defensive as possible (consumer staples, TIPS, cash).

Valliere called the Fed an “activist Fed.” But felt this was a good thing generally. The Fed generally acted appropriately including its machinations in the JP Morgan- Bear Stearns shotgun wedding. He did not see the Bear Stearns deal as a ‘bailout,’ saying that if you thought it was a bailout, you’d have to ask Bear Stearns investors what they thought (having lost 90% of their money).

Big Government
So, with that as a backdrop, we can get into Valliere’s macro issues. The first example of big government is the housing bailout measures put forth by Chris Dodd. The pure politics of the issue means this bill will not be vetoed. This is the first example of how the subprime crisis is leading to big government.

My comment: The politics of it all means no sane politician would be caught vetoing a bill that gives millions of Americans relief on a key election issue with an election only six months away. George W. Bush may be a lame duck but he’s cares enough not to sacrifice the Republican’s chances in November by vetoing a bill that will aid millions and being seen as hard-hearted. And the tax rebate checks, while a drop in the bucket in terms of the stimulus the U.S. economy needs and likely to have no effect on the economy at $150 billion in a $14 trillion economy, will have a substantial impact on the size of the federal budget deficit. This is another sign that the subprime crisis has ushered in an era of big government.

The biggest change, according to Valliere, is in regulation. There will be a marked increase in Government regulation regardless of who’s in power in 2009. First, U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s regulatory proposal is “dead on arrival.” In this economic environment, much more is desired. Congressman Barney Frank will have the biggest say on this issue and he wants much more regulation and “punishment.”

My comment: This means that the de-regulation era has effectively ended. Big mergers will be eyed suspiciously. The cost of doing business will increase as red tape and regulation increases. All of this is bad for anyone looking to make a boatload of money based on capital gains in a new bull market. I happen to think that the pendulum does need to shift substantially away from de-regulation, but this will certainly mean an end to inflated asset prices in the capital markets.

As far as regulation goes, I predict a ’super-regulator’ is in the offing a la the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This bout of big government is going to produce a federal agency akin to DHS because people are going to want to see an all-powerful federal agency formed that can effectively keep the capitalist wolves at bay when they overreach. This is a transformation that I view with some dread because I believe that, while de-regulation had swung way too far, big government is a problem, not a solution.

Valliere finished his big government theme by mentioning the enormous increase in the federal budget deficit for FY 2008. We are going from about $160 billion to $500 billion in ONE year. This is truly remarkable and his testimony to the size of the government increase.

So, that’s Valliere’s theme #1: the subprime crisis workout means big government regardless of who is in power.

Taxes
Theme #2 is taxes. Valliere said that even John McCain will not be able to withstand an invigorated Democratic congress. Bush’s tax cuts are set to expire in 2010. This means that unless some legislation is proposed, voted for by congress, signed by the new President and enacted, all of those tax cuts will expire. This gives the Democrats in general, and Charlie Rangel in particular, a lot of leverage.

First, the Top Rate on ordinary income is definitely going higher. 35% may go to it’s pre-Bush level of 39.6% McCain may have to accept a compromise at 37-38%.

Second, capital gains is a big story. If Obama wins, they are going from the current 15% to the mid-20s. And then you’ve got Dividends, which were taxed at the rate of ordinary income before the Bush tax cut and are now taxed at 15%. That’s a huge difference. Valliere does not see the rate shooting up to 39.6% but it will go up substantially as well.

Interestingly, a subject where Valliere was clear was on these tax changes being retroactive. Even if the new President gets legislation through congress quickly, we’re talking June before a comprehensive new tax bill is signed, sealed and delivered. But, this bill may well be retroactive to January 1, 2009 if it is Barack Obama as President. Retroactive bills have been done before, so this is not a novel idea. Any way you look at it 15% is history.

My comment: I agree that capital gains taxes are going up. First, Obama is on record in the last ABC debate as having said that he would raise the capital gains tax to at least 20% (where it was under Clinton, after he lowered it) if not 28% (where it was when Clinton came to the White House in 1992). McCain will be forced by a Democratic Congress to accept a deal of some sort. Remember, the Democrats have huge leverage here because these cuts are automatically going to lapse in 2010. So, absent new legislation, starting in 2010, the capital gains rate will be 20% and the dividend rate 39.6%.

As for the equity of this, that’s a whole second discussion. I feel it is equitable to somewhat equalize capital gains, ordinary income and dividend tax rates because it gives people fewer opportunities for tax arbitrage. Having widely different rates is discriminatory because it allows individuals who can earn their money through one channel to receive a vastly different effective tax rate than others earning income through different channels. The best equitable solution is a flatter rate structure near 25-30% that is tax neutral. Deficit spending is not something to be proud of, so any tax rate cuts must be accompanied by spending cuts.

The most important implication of these developments is it will mean a selling torrent in November and December as people look to lock in gains. If people expect a capital gains tax increase that is retroactive to January 1, 2009 to go into effect, they will lock in capital gains before that date. This is a guarantee. So, I see Valliere’s assessment as very troubling for the stock market come year end 2008.

Valliere also addressed the Estate Tax as well. He said that the federal government was simply not going to abandon the estate tax. He sees a rate of 35-40% with a high exemption as the likely outcome.

My comment: Estate taxes are not about revenue but equity. Estate taxes are not huge money makers for the Treasury. However, the concept of capital gains being passed between generations leads to fears of consolidating wealth and power and is alien to the American psyche. Americans will not stand for a tax policy without estate taxes on principle alone.

The AMT is a huge tax generator. According to Valliere, it’s worth $900 billion over 10 years. Therefore, given the size of the deficit, he does not see its being abolished anytime soon. More likely, it will be phased out over time.

The third rail of politics is social security and medicare. We fund social security through payroll taxes. These taxes are limited to the first $100,000 of income.

My comment: That’s not going to cut it, as the structural generational changes in the U.S. mean that social security will be in deficit soon. People are living longer and having fewer children. So that means the country is getting older.

Obama is a brave politician according to Valliere for addressing this issue. With Obama as President, he sees the payroll taxes being assessed on income up to $200,000.

My comment: we have the lowest effective tax rates on individuals in the OECD. Don’t believe anyone who implies that America is overtaxed as Valliere did. A gentlemen of 80+ in the room hit back at Valliere, implying that we get a good deal and he was proud to be an American.

The last tax issue is corporate taxes. They are going down. Even Charlie Rangel wants 31%. McCain wants 25%.

My comment: The UK is suffering a rash of corporate defections because of high corporate tax rates. There is a lot of talk in the British press about companies leaving or threatening to leave the UK as a result. The point being — we are in a global corporate world where companies can choose their base for taxation. There is a solid point in being competitive on corporate tax rates.

Politics
Valliere admits to being partial to Hillary Rodham Clinton. He thought she would be the next President and is on record as having said so in ‘07. He felt she would be the strongest President amongst the candidates. However, during his whole speech, he never mentioned her,nly referring to McCain. [I assume he did this because people inside the beltway all believe she has no shot at being nominated.] He chalked up her problems to:

• Bill Clinton, his gaffes and surprisingly poor campaigning skill
• Her positioning as an inevitability nominee
• Internal campaign problems
• Barack Obama’s being “adroit”
• Obama’s winning “a lot of states where nobody lives.”

Valliere said that he imagines someone high within the Democratic apparatus close to Clinton will pull her aside and ask her to quit after the primaries. He mentioned Rahm Emanuel, James Carville and Ed Rendell as the ones most likely to take on this role. He imagines they will tell her it is in her best interest to quit gracefully because she has three jobs to contend for:

1. Senate Majority Leader- Harry Reid is unpopular
2. Governor of New York. Spitzer and Patterson have not been stellar.
3. Nominee for 2012

He believes she will bow out gracefully by mid-June and that everyone will be singing “Cumbaya” at the Democratic Convention come August.

He sees the Democrats scoring significant victories in the Senate. They will get 4-5 seats, maybe 6. But, they will not hit the [filibuster-proof] magic number of 60. In the house, the Republicans are going to have huge problems. States of notable interest are VA, NH, MN, CO, NH, OR, and ME. All of these are at risk. The big problem is Republican retirements.

My comment: Two retirements are especially noteworthy. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) left early to get a cushy job because he knew what was coming for Republicans in 2008. So he left while the getting was good despite the fact that he left his seat prey to the Democrats, who took it in a special election. The same thing goes for Former House Speaker Tom Delay (R-TX).

Valliere says the Democrats will take at least 12 seats in the house giving them a 50-seat majority.

My comment: This is a big story because it means Democratic control of Congress will be strengthened.

Valliere also sees a lot of headwinds for McCain. But, he thinks you have to respect a man who condemns ethanol subsidies in Iowa and tells Michigan workers jobs are never coming back. His problems are:

• Age
• Temperament
• Health

Temperament: the Democrats will hit him on his ties with Phoenix developers and lobbyists. Both of these issues could cause a McCain volcanic eruption for which he is known [My comment: McCain has been known to drop the F-bomb on even Republican colleagues when hot under the collar].

Health: he has had melanomas 5 different times and you can see that one side of his face has been fully reconstructed. Therefore, his running mate selection is crucial. Mitt Romney has to be on the short list.

Overall, these are not fatal headwinds.

My comment: this seems a fair depiction. I would also say that McCain is vulnerable on his association with Bush policies, one of many reasons Condi Rice is a non-starter as VP. And he is vulnerable as a flip-flopper given his policy stance changes since his last run in 2000. Romney being seen a flip-flopper for tacking hard right as well could present problems with moderates and independent voters.

Biggest McCain problems are:

1. The economy may not come back. Valliere believes in a 2nd-half recovery. But, will it be enough, especially on jobs, to rescue McCain? In 1992, Bush I lost because it didn’t come back in time.
2. There’s the Bush Ball and Chain. He has the approval ratings of Nixon post-Watergate and Truman during the Korean War. The next elections led to huge change in both cases. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Columbia University president and former War hero who had never held national office became President after Truman in 1953. In 1976, Jimmy Carter, a peanut farmer, became president.
3. History: since FDR. The pattern is 8 and out. People don’t like parties to be in power too long. The only exception is Bush I.

Obama’s problems:

1. He has not been fully vetted
2. “Harvard Disease”: this is a problem of Harvard turning out smart people who don’t seem to connect because they are seen as arrogant and condescending.

The wildcard is Iran. The U.S., Israel or both could strike before Bush II leaves office. From Israel’s national security point of view, would you rather have the threat of a nuclear enemy who wants to wipe you off the map eliminated during a Bush or an Obama administration?

Investment Themes

1. Freddie and Fannie will benefit from an Obama administration.
2. Big Pharma loses with Obama because of price controls.
3. Alternative energy wins with Obama (although McCain is also lukewarm on ethanol.
4. Tax breaks for oil & gas are out with Obama, so that’s a negative for big oil
5. Hospital Stocks will rally because of McCain
6. Defense: In a contrarian call, Valliere saw McCain as bad for Defense because he is a fiscal hawk with national security credibility. The national security vulnerabilities of Obama may cause him to be more liberal on defense spending.

My comment: all interesting ideas, but not necessarily ones I agree with 100%. I think Fannie and Freddie will fail or be nationalized. And I think McCain is good for defense.

Valliere’s ideas were well-constructed and his logic was internally consistent.

Related posts:

• Marc Faber: Obama’s not going to be good for the market
• Taxes, Taxes, Everywhere
• I probably can’t vote for McCain
• Are US corporations feeding at the trough of low taxes?
• Obama sees Bush behind weak dollar

Now that the Democratic race is almost over, John McCain has stopped getting a free ride. Almost overnight the attacks have begun and we will see whether his squeaky clean maverick image holds up to scrutiny. Today, the Washington Post and the UK newspaper the Guardian launched the first high profile probe into McCain’s business dealings with an article entitled, “Allegations of ranch deal threaten McCain’s clean image.” The Guardian article begins

Left to campaign under the radar as attention focuses on the Democratic race, the Republican John McCain yesterday faced renewed scrutiny of his ties to businesspeople and lobbyists during his years in the Senate.

The Washington Post reported that McCain pushed legislation through Congress for an Arizona housing development that benefited one of the senator’s main presidential fundraisers.

It was the second report this election season to raise questions about McCain’s reputation as a crusader against the influence of money in politics.

But the timing of the report could prove more critical to McCain, with Barack Obama so close to securing the Democratic nomination and eager to begin moving forward on the presidential contest.

-The Guardian

It is wholly apparent that John McCain has gotten a free ride. Now, we can see the damage caused by the long Democratic contest for Democrats. These allegations can now take center stage.

Welcome to the campaign, John.

Related posts:

• Obama leads McCain by 2 points
• Great article on Presidential race losers
• Pennsylvania goes to Clinton
• McCain chooses Palin as his running mate
• Quote of the day: John McCain