A non-debate post

Politics, 2008 Election

Humor:

(hat tip: Edge of the American West)

Republican Desperation

Republican 527 plans an attack ad linking Obama to Reverend Wright and others.

My take: I don’t know; according to Dick Morris, attack ads only work when new information is being conveyed and my guess is that most voters have already heard of this stuff. Besides, it isn’t as if Republicans have much credibility with the public at this time. But there are some low information voters that might not have heard this as yet.

The RNC attempts to smear Obama:

Obama’s plans

The GOP has an “Obama Spendometer” page that has listed a lot of fantastic Obama priorities.

So on National Security:

Obama Would Implement The Lugar-Obama Legislation To Crack Down On The Smuggling Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

You see, this is bad because it would cost $440 million per year, which is far worse than letting terrorists smuggle nuclear weapons. I suppose this means that the GOP is now objectively pro-smuggling of WMDs since they harp on it some more:

Obama Would “Lead A Global Effort To Secure All Nuclear Weapons And Material At Vulnerable Sites Within Four Years.”

That’s crazy talk! John McCain wouldn’t waste your taxpayer dollars on securing nuclear weapons. Vote for him!

Obama Will Provide $2 Billion To Aid Iraqi Refugees.

Obama Would Add “65,000 Soldiers To The Army And 27,000 Marines,” Which Would Cost Approximately $11.04 Billion Per Year, Equal To $44.16 Billion Over Four Years.

Obama Would Provide An Additional $1 Billion Per Year In Non-Military Assistance To Afghanistan, Equal To $4 Billion Over Four Years.

On Education:

Obama’s Early Education And K-12 Package Will Cost $18 Billion A Year; Equal To $72 Billion Over Four Years.

Obama Would Assist High School Students With Obtaining Access To College-Level Courses.

Obama Would Provide $25 Million A Year For States To Develop Early Assessment Programs To Increase College Readiness; Equal To $100 Million Over Four Years.

Obama Would Provide $250 Million To “Bring Quality Teachers Back To The Gulf Region.”

Obama Will Increase The Maximum Pell Grant To $5,400 And Ensure The Grant Keeps Pace With The Rising Cost Of College Inflation.

This is supposed to be an attack on Obama?

Obama working with Republicans (undermining McCain’s claim that Obama is too far to the left to work across the aisle)

During the first presidential debate, McCain accused Obama of a lack of bipartisanship:

Sen. Obama has the most liberal voting record in the US Senate. It is hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left.

Yet the RNC’s latest attack on Obama clearly proves otherwise:

Obama Plans To Implement Legislation That Would “Triple Non-Military Aid To The Pakistani People.” Obama: “It’s time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That’s why I’m cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq And National Security, Washington, DC, 7/15/08)

Obama Would Implement The Lugar-Obama Legislation To Crack Down On The Smuggling Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. “[Obama] also will fully implement the Lugar-Obama legislation to help our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama: The War We Need To Win,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 3/3/08)

That’s two bills in which Obama is working with Sen. Dick Lugar, including one in which both are the title sponsors. The RNC may have forgotten this, but Lugar is a Republican.

My goodness.

The Bail-out

Robert Reich has some thoughts about the Senate Bill:

In fact, the bailout bill isn’t really taxpayer supported. It will be funded by additional federal debt, issued mostly to foreign governments — especially the Chinese and in the Middle East. And, strictly speaking, it’s not even a bailout. The Treasury will buy and hold mortgage-backed securities whose value is now unknown because there’s no market for them, until housing prices start rising again, by which time the securities should be worth something — perhaps even more than the Treasury pays for them. (Note that there continues to be great confusion about the extent to which the Treasury will hold a reverse auction, paying banks the minimum price at which they’re willing to sell the securities — perhaps 20 cents on the dollar — or whether the Treasury will buy the securities outright for their face values and take warrants or shares of stock in return.)

But whatever it’s called and however it’s financed, it’s still an outrage. America’s foreign policy is made no more flexible by going into deeper hock to the Chinese and the Middle East. And the deal still subjects American taxpayers to some risk, especially if the housing market doesn’t bounce back for many years. Worse, the bill can’t help but prop up the earnings many Wall Street executives whose malfeasance, greed, and stupidity got us into this mess in the first place. And it does nothing for average Americans except avoid economic calamity. (The provision ostensibly helping distressed homeowners is to be used at the discretion of the Treasury Department, so it’s mostly a sham.)

[...]
The Era of Angry Populism has only just begun. Let’s hope Obama wins, and is able to mobilize the anger into fierce pressure on Congress to get his agenda enacted, as well as reform Wall Street and Washington.

The whole article is worth reading.

Of course, some Republicans have some ideas of why this happened:

For the last week or so, I’ve been mocking the Right’s claim that somehow our current economic crisis is actually due to abortion, homosexuals, and an overall breakdown in the family.

I assumed that this was just some knee-jerk default response they were giving, since their inclination is to just assume that everything can be related to gays and abortion and families and that once they gave it a bit of thought, they’d realize how ridiculous it is and they’d stop saying it.

And, of course, I was wrong:

Conservative U.S. Christians say the culture has gone to hell and it has taken the economy and Wall Street down with it.

…

The narrative goes roughly like this: the “collapse” of the traditional family, widespread divorce and a “permissive” culture have led to a disregard for personal responsibility.

A culture focused on instant gratification — through the overuse of credit cards to buy consumer goods, for example — has also lost other “traditional values” such as thrift and hard work.

“You can’t have a strong, vibrant society when you don’t have strong, vibrant families. It’s a crisis of commitment, it’s a crisis of responsibility,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative lobby group with strong evangelical ties.

“If you don’t live up to your responsibility you are going to see that in the broader culture. You see this on Wall Street,” he told Reuters.

So take your pick: listen to a liberal like Robert Reich, or to a conservative like the one quoted above.