All these fuckers (Smerconish, Will, Buckley, Noonan, et al) are merely positioning themselves for Fairness Doctrine exemptions. They and their kind hope to become the entrenched loyal opposition to the Democrats, just like Thacher Longstreth Republicans pretended to be in opposition in the Philadelphia of the 50-60-70's.
Welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends.

dr kill

Or, perhaps they are trying to preserve the last tattered shred of intellectual honesty in the Republican party.

No Bell,

When are the Democrats going to get some honesty?

Like living standards are a function of invested capital and that the best way to create capital is capitalism. Heck even Marx knew that.

So when will the Dems become true Marxists, instead of just redistributionists?

Too bad McCain isn't a better spokesman. He was right that the fundamentals of the economy are sound, but it needs some explanation. Most Amercian's biggest investment is in their own house and watching it's value slip away is scary. On it's own, "the fundamentals of the economy are sound" makes him sound out of touch. He needed to say a bit about why.

The part that amazes me the most is the "VP". McCain basically took "experience" off the table when he chose Palin. I think she is a great choice given what's available, but experience is not her strong suit. But how people can look at her inexperience and say, "I'm voting for Obama because of it" is just stupid.

Hope is nice, we all need hope, but hope is not a plan.

M. Simon

I believe you are changing the subject from the original post, but oh well. I believe that Obama recognizes that well-regulated capitalism is the way out of our current economic mess. Not cronyism. Not laissez-faire capitalism. Not the "capitalism" that privatizes profit and socializes risk.

And, if you are attempting to be clever by addressing me as "No Bell," it may not be as effective as you think. You can call me whatever you like, but the fact remains that it appears Americans are finally (if not grudgingly) realizing that the last eight years of Bush policy have tarnished nearly every aspect of our country.

McCain basically took "experience" off the table when he chose Palin.

Unless you count executive experience. Experience with the oil and gas industries and an 80% voter approval rating.

BTW I was under the impression that Obama took experience off the table. Not to mention the ability to make a decision (130 present votes in the Il. legislature). And let us not forget his bad decision on the surge. Which he acknowledges was bad and yet wouldn't even change in hindsight. So that takes learning ability off the table too.

Tim

"McCain basically took 'experience' off the table when he chose Palin."

Well, that and judgment, transparency, intelligence, and overall seriousness.

Other than those drawbacks, I've got to admit that she is good at winking.

Dr. No, you may be onto something there. But I think you ought to give credit where credit is due.

Sarah Palin may be good at winking, but few noticed that she was actually plagiarizing a better winker, Hillary Clinton:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/10/twiddling_with.html

Eric

You can't honestly think that winking to a specific person in the audience while chumming it up following a speech and winking at the American people as a whole during a VP debate are the same phenomenon.

Sarah Palin is the very definition of an unserious politician.

Simon, what I mean is, prior to choosing Palin, Obama's experience was his biggest weakness. McCain took it off the table of attack points.

I agree that Palin has more relevant experience than Obama, but that's not saying much. Obama has virtually none.

Dr. D, thank you for your comment. I understand from your posts that you are in favor of intelligent politicians, and who would disagree with that? But is it your position that being elected a US senator is the required, preferred method of demonstrating intelligence? Or graduating from an Ivy League School of Law? What, in your opinion, is the true definition of an intellectual?

My understanding of the difference between intellectuals and smart people who actually produce while they think can be explained best by the old chicken and ham breakfast parable. For the chicken providing an egg is a three minute a day distraction, a break from scratching and clucking. Providing the ham is a lifetime commitment.

I submit that intelligence is not the private domain of the intellectual. Not all the knuckle-draggers with whom I prefer to spend my day think 'a polypeptide is a mother-fucking toothpaste'.

We could start with returning to a part-time term-limited legislative branch of Federal government. And don't confuse me with a Republican, they are also socialists.

No Bell,

Encouraging FM/FM and various banks to give loans to unqualified and under qualified buyers is not exactly good regulation. Community Reinvestment Act ring a bell? When did Mr. Obama speak out about it? When did Bush? McCain? And how about Jim Johnson helping Mr. O pick out a VP before his presence became inconvenient? Or Penny Pritzker, who is not radioactive yet, still on his finance team.

Daniel Mudd of the 22 room Colonial Mansion style Mudd hut and former Fannie head praised Mr. Obama and the whole black caucus for their support.

BTW I think Mr. Smerconish brought up the economy. A word I think I bolded. Let me check. Yep. In bold.

Now how was the social engineering done to get banks to loan to unqualified customers? It was made conventional wisdom that the only reason it was hard for minorities to get loans was their minority status and not their earning potential and credit habits.

Is Obama going to fix any of that? I doubt it.

dr. kill

"who would disagree with that?"

The McCain campaign, for starters.

"What, in your opinion, is the true definition of an intellectual?"

I want someone in the Oval Office (and someone first in line for the Oval Office) who has a relatively broad knowledge of the world, who has a relatively broad knowledge of history, and who is capable of learning. They don't have to have graduated from Harvard, and they don't have to have had a decades long career in government.

A President needs to have an agile, adaptable mind that can take in and process enormous amount of information. He should value knowledgeable advisors more than ideologues. He should be smart enough to recognize when he doesn't know as much as he needs to about a subject, humble enough to seek out people that do, and wise enough to evaluate their advice.

What I dearly want (and where Palin fails most miserably) is a President who has clearly given some serious thought to the issues of the day and is capable of explaining his ideas as an adult.

We've had eight years of the opposite of all these traits--isn't it about time to try something else?

M.Simon

"Encouraging FM/FM and various banks to give loans to unqualified and under qualified buyers is not exactly good regulation."

You're right. We shouldn't do that. Are you under the impression that prohibiting discrimination and encouraging lenders to serve previously red-lined areas is the same thing as encouraging bad loans?

If you are seriously arguing that the current crisis was caused by those poor banks being forced by the government to make loans they otherwise wouldn't have made, then I have to question either your knowledge of the situation, your honesty, or both.

I have a fair amount of experience in this area, and I can say without hesitation that the number of bad loans that were a result of government mandate is miniscule compared to the number of bad loans that were a result of greed combined with lax regulation.

I guess we will agree to disagree. I'm not an all thought and no action person. And I don't consider lawyering or legislating or editorializing or pontificating as action, but as parasitism. Parasitism - as in wealth redistribution as social policy.
I believe character is needed in a President, because, who can believe what they say while explaining-campaigning?
I believe one can safely say that with McCain, Palin and Biden, their character is known. Obama could be anyone. But if it walks and talks like a socialist, don't expect a libertarian.

And another thing- I find myself qualified to be President under your criteria. I have clearly given our problems serious thought, and I can explain Obama's economic ideas in terms even Joe Biden could understand.

Imagine the US government as a Mardi Gras float being pulled by Eric, M, Simon, Joe the Plummer and me. Imagine you and your peeps standing along St. Charles street shouting 'throw me something, mister!'.

dr. kill

"I find myself qualified to be President under your criteria."

I believe you misunderstand my point. I do not think those qualities are all it takes to be a good President, but they should be an absolute minimum. Temperament, ideology, and a host of other things are also necessary.

Sorry to rain on your inauguration parade.

Are you under the impression that prohibiting discrimination and encouraging lenders to serve previously red-lined areas is the same thing as encouraging bad loans?

That is the way it turned out. So one might conclude from the evidence that the redlining was not racial but economic.

i.e. greenlining. Which would say that the evidence of redlining if corrected for credit scores and property desirability would disappear. And in fact it does.

Just another case of Mau-Mauing the Flack Catchers.

M.Simon

"So one might conclude from the evidence that the redlining was not racial but economic."

One might conclude that, provided that one were inclined (or eager) to ignore the well-documented history of red-lining. Seriously, M.Simon, are you really disputing that there has been a history of racial discrimination with regards to housing and mortgage lending in this country? Really?

Again, the fact remains that laying the sub-prime mortgage fiasco at the feet of anti-discrimination policies is just ludicrous. The number of bad loans that banks were "forced" to make by government mandate is insignificant when compared to the number of bad loans that banks made because of greed.

Dr. D, I wish I could be as dismissive of the ideology and ideologues associated with Obama as you. It is not that I wish him ill personally, he is only a pawn in the machinery of the Democrat wing of the Democrat party. I tend to believe what he and Biden and their advisors say, instead of going with the proffered blank slate meme.
I'd settle for a candidate who has demonstrated a character I feel I could trust to do what they believe is best for our country; a history, so to speak. Obama has explained their ideology well enough for me to know that I reject it. But if you have a reasonable explanation for for the preacher, the priest, the bombers, Rezko and the rest, I'd like to hear it.

No Bell,

I think the chief evidence for redlining was provided by ACORN. Well known purveyors of NINJA loans.

In any case if we want to give loans to the uncreditworthy in the name of ending redlining - fine. Make it a line item in the budget.

Simon, what I mean is, prior to choosing Palin, Obama's experience was his biggest weakness. McCain took it off the table of attack points.

No - he highlighted it. On the McCain ticket the apprentice is #2. On the Obama ticket #1. Colin Powell and Joe Biden agree on that one.

Obama is the definition of an unserious politician. Higher taxes will lower government income. Obama is for higher taxes because they promote fairness.