David Brooks gets to the heart of what makes the Palin selection so wrong:
Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness. (Emphasis added.)
Those nine bolded words capture it all. Republicans don’t believe that the government can do anything productive like, say, regulate the financial industry.
Please share widely!
Isn’t capitalism. Sounds like corporatism. Were it Ms. Palin (who wasn’t in Washington when GSEs came about) or the Republicans only the ones responsible, life would be so simple. Investigate how much and to whom Freddie & Fannie donated to politicians. Now, why would they do that? There were some politicians that warned of this disaster as far back as 2002. They were ignored for the sake of expediency. Now these same expedient politicians are expected to fix the problem? Good luck.
<
p>Were Palin elected as vice-president, I would expect that her role would be the usual one of vice president – to open ball games and highways. I can’t see her as a Cheney with his hand in the back of the presidential puppet. Should she be forced into the role as president, I see her as puppet to whoever the Republicans install as her vice-president. (Cheney?)
<
p>I believe it wise for the Democratic Party leadership to work with people that understand economics, not the same tired hacks that brought the financial crisis upon us, to come up with viable solutions. Based upon the past history, I don’t hold out much hope. Why can’t the Democrats be less like the Republicans?
The easiest way to offload a cost item on the corporate balance sheet is to turn it into an externality by buying a politician.
Sad and terrifying that it is so accurate. This was land of great promise and we let it decay.
Assets, liabilities, and equity.
Costs (expenses) are shown on the Income Statement.
FWIW.
Seems like every wild-eyed lunge at Palin by Andrew Sullivan or Kieth Olberman firms up and cements the Republican base, while freeing McCain to return to 2000 McCain to get moderates. This is also going to make the all of the efforts to link McCain to Bush fizzle even more than they already are, EVEN IF it is true that McCain would be Bush’s third term.
<
p>I don’t like the dynamic, assurances:
<
p>
<
p>to the contrary notwithstanding.
True, evangelicals are 20-25% of the U.S. electorate. But not all of them will vote for the G.O.P., and more important 75% of voters are not evangelicals.
<
p>Like I wrote above, the financial crisis is just the latest example of the stakes at issue in this election. As voting day draws closer, people’s minds will focus and the appeal of George Bush III and Dick Cheney with lipstick will fade.
<
p>This will be another very close election.
That means the GOP needs to win another 31% of the total vote in order to elect John McCain. That 31% represents around 40% of the remaining 80% of voters.
<
p>Can Obama get more than 60% of the rest of the electorate?
There’s this interesting diary on Open Left about Palin’s sinking popularity. It seems that it is dropping, almost precipitously. Daily Kos has been constructing tracking polls. Results are:
DateNetFavUnfav
Sept 11+1752%35%
Sept 12+1451%37%
Sept 13+ 949%40%
Sept 14+ 547%42%
Sept 15+ 447%43%
Sept 16+ 145%44%
By way of contrast the approval/disapproval is as follows on September 16:
WhoFavUnfav
McCain49%45%
Obama54%37%
Palin45%44%
Biden49%32%
So I think what we’re seeing is that the initial negative comments about Palin landed on the unreceptive ears of people who had a very positive (and, I’d add, unwarranted) opinion of her.
<
p>Now her positives are dropping precipitously. This is perhaps a framing effect. If you like Palin, then negative comments reflect on the commenter. If you dislike her, negative comments are confirmatory.
I said “framing” just to tweak you.
another poll shows something different.
<
p>”David Brooks gets to the heart of what makes the Palin selection so wrong:”
<
p>Wrong from whose perspective? Is this statement an implication that she’s hurt, not helped, the McCain Campaign?
To argue that she will somehow hurt the McCain campaign is ridiculous. Dream-on.
shows a similar trend line with Palin’s unfavorables rising and favorables falling.
Seems awfully fluid though, still.
<
p>I will say that the reaction to some of the liberal attacks (which, for the most part (by volume) I view as fluff, with substantial issues embedded in all of the noise) may prove counterproductive in the longer term. Maybe this is what these numbers show.
<
p>That’s sexist! may have worked in an ironic sense at first, but quickly began to seem like whining. This is damaging for the same reason that the usual stance of the Democratic candidate at this time — They’re lying and so mean, why won’t somebody make them stop?– is damaging. Voters don’t go for whiners.